Preamble

The House met at Eleven o' Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

Directed Mineworkers

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Labour if he will consider granting an option to young men directed to mining work to accept instead work on the repair of bombed houses, particularly if they had been engaged on, or were trained in, building work.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): No, Sir.

Mr. Sorensen: In view of the very urgent need for young and able workers in the building and repairing of houses, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that he might give this matter further consideration?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir.

Mr. Mainwaring: Is it not about time this impossible and futile scheme was dropped?

Mr. Cocks: asked the Minister of Labour for what period boys are directed to the mines; and what is their position with regard to demobilisation.

Mr. Bevin: No period is specified in the directions. As stated in my reply of 12th October, to the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), young men sent to coalmining under the ballot scheme will not be retained compulsorily beyond the date at which they would have been released from the Forces if they had been called up.

Mr. Cocks: Does this mean that as miners are released from the Army, these boys will be released, or does it mean that they will have to remain in the pits until voluntary recruiting becomes normal—which will be never as long as the present system of private ownership continues?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir, they will be affected by the age and length of service system, just as if they had been in the Army.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the position of those boys who, before being conscripted for the mines, were articled to various professions and have still periods of study to complete and examinations to pass before they can practise in these professions; and whether such boys will be given priority when demobilisation is considered.

Mr. Bevin: I should propose to treat these boys in this respect as nearly as possible on the same footing as if they had been called up for the Forces.

Mr. Cocks: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many of these boys will not be able to earn their living in their professions until they are well on in the twenties? That will be a handicap and, in the meantime, they will be a burden on their parents.

Mr. Bevin: They will have available to them, as I explained in the Debate yesterday, the re-education and training scheme just as the troops have. I have guaranteed that to them.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Will they not have premiums assistance?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot answer that at the moment.

Mr. Muff: Will my right hon. Friend give preferential treatment to boys who have volunteered to work in the mines?

Merchant Seamen (Reinstatement)

Mr. Muff: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the decision of the Umpires Court in Manchester whereby Michael Patrick Giles, of Hull, was refused reinstatement under the Civil Employment Act, and that this seaman was in the Merchant Navy and had to undergo a gunnery course and to man the guns on his ship; and if he will propose the amendment of the Act to include men of the Merchant Navy.

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Minister of Labour the position of merchant seamen in regard to their reinstatement in their employment.

Mr. Bevin: I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) on 9th November.

Mr. Muff: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Department has directed 14,000 ex-seamen back into the Navy, and taken 6,000 men from the Armed Forces and directed them into the Merchant Navy; and will there be any differentiation between these two categories?

Mr. Bevin: As I explained in my previous answer, it has been settled in negotiation with the parties concerned, and I have been asked not to convert the Merchant Navy into a military Force.

Unemployment and Redundancy, Cornwall

Commander Agnew: asked the Minister of Labour the figures to the latest date for unemployment and redundancy in the Camborne-Redruth district.

Mr. Bevin: I am writing to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Admiralty Contract, Helston (Eire Workers)

Commander Agnew: asked the Minister of Labour the number of workmen who have been dismissed during the last four weeks by an Admiralty contractor engaged on work near Helston; whether any workmen from Eire are still employed there; and if the numbers of the latter have been increased during the last four weeks.

Mr. Bevin: I am having inquiries made and will write to my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as possible.

Industrial Disputes (Use of Military)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour the number of occasions, during the present war, when the military have been called upon to perform civilian tasks during strikes; and will he give a list of those occasions.

Mr. Bevin: Members of H.M. Forces have been called upon on 32 occasions to assist in maintaining essential services, as a result of stoppages of work arising

from industrial disputes. It would be contrary to the public interest to publish further particulars.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL RECONVERSION

Rehabilitation Facilities (Women)

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is proposed to open any rehabilitation centres for women.

Mr. Bevin: I am ready to consider the provision of industrial rehabilitation facilities for women as soon as the need arises.

Government Factory (Displaced Workers)

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Labour what plans have been made for the employment of 1,000 displaced workers at present engaged on Government plant at a factory, of which he has been informed, when that factory closes down in the course of the next few weeks.

Mr. Bevin: A proportion of the workers at this factory will be retained for some time after production comes to an end. The remainder will be released between now and the end of the year. There are substantial demands for labour for important work in the neighbourhood, and no difficulty in placing the workpeople in alternative employment is anticipated.

Mr. Burke: Could not some arrangement be made for using this factory for some form of permanent production, rather than that it should be partially maintained?

Mr. Bevin: That question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Civil Defence and Fire Service Volunteers

Mr. Henry Brooke: asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements he is making to secure a fair chance of jobs after demobilisation for men who, having entered Civil Defence or the Auxiliary Fire Service as volunteers in 1939, are now being drafted into the Armed Forces, seeing that they will apparently rank late for demobilisation and lack the statutory reinstatement rights in civil employment which men who did not volunteer but were afterwards conscripted for Civil Defence enjoy.

Mr. Bevin: The men referred to by my hon. Friend will be in no different position from a number of others, whose calling up was deferred owing to their being engaged on essential war work. I regret that at present I see no way of departing in their case from the rules which must, in fairness, be applied generally.

Mr. Brooke: Will the Minister consider the importance of making sure that those who volunteered for Civil Defence do not come off worse in this matter, than those who waited to be conscripted?

Mr. Bevin: Certainly, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGHER APPOINTMENTS (HANKEY COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

Sir Arnold Gridley: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to state when the report of Lord Hankey's Committee on Higher Appointments will be published, in view of the keen interest taken in the subject of the committee's enquiry.

Mr. Bevin: I would refer my hon. Friend to the last part of the reply given to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) on Tuesday last.

Sir A. Gridley: That reply said that the report would be issued very shortly; and can my right hon. Friend give a clear indication of what "very shortly" means?

Mr. Bevin: "Shortly" is very difficult to define.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON HOSPITALS (STAFFS)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the continued shortage of cooks, porters, laundry workers, waitresses, wardmaids, office cleaners and housemaids at the London Hospital and other hospitals in the London region threatens to cause the closing of beds for which patients are waiting; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the shortage of staff in the London hospitals and I am glad to have this opportunity to make a statement on the position.
During the period of the heavy "flying-bomb" attacks, the London hospitals

evacuated a large number of their patients and their staff demands were much reduced. In the last two months these demands, enlarged by the need to replace excessive wastage, consequent upon the dislocation caused by the bombing, again became urgent. This coincided with the need to provide domestic staff for the hostels for building workers brought into London to repair bomb damaged houses, a measure pressed from all quarters as one demanding the highest priority. The extent of this unexpected drain on our manpower resources is shown by the fact that 3,400 domestic workers have been found for these hostels.
Even during this exceptionally difficult period the hospitals were not neglected and in the past two months 63 cooks, 756 full-time and 115 part-time domestic workers and 163 orderlies, porters, stokers and maintenance men were placed. I am sending my hon. Friend details of placings in the London Hospital to which be makes specific reference, and the figures show that of 62 domestic vacancies notified, from 23rd August to 7th November, 51 applicants have been submitted and 44 placed. Further demands have since been received. Now that the staffing of the building workers hostels is almost completed, I hope that it will be possible to make further progress in meeting the demands of hospitals which will enjoy first priority for the supply of domestic labour.

Mr. Keeling: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a great calamity if beds had to be closed owing to lack of staff, and does he hope that he will be able to avoid that?

Mr. Bevin: I think so; I am pressing on with it, but I would make all urgent appeal to the voluntary hospitals in London to introduce a little more up-to-date personnel management. It would help me enormously if their staffing measures were not so antiquated.

Captain Peter Macdonald: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware not only the London hospitals but other hospitals in the country find themselves in this position with regard to cooks and staff; and will he give as much consideration to county hospitals as he is giving to London hospitals?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir, there is first priority for hospitals all over the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — CATERING WAGES COMMISSION

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour whether information with regard to proceedings of the Catering Wages Commission, which is denied to the Press and to private persons, is available to officers of his Department.

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. Information is constantly being interchanged between the Commission and my Department and this no doubt includes much that is not communicated to the Press or the public. Business could not be satisfactorily conducted on any other basis.

Sir J. Mellor: But should the right hon. Gentleman's Department accept any privileges in this respect?

Mr. Bevin: They do not get any privileges in this respect, but the Commission having taken over the duties that the Ministry used to exercise under the Trade Board Act, the information of my Department must be made available to the Commission.

Mr. George Griffiths: Do directors of insurance companies get any privileges?

Sir J. Mellor: Could not this information be made available to all interested parties?

Mr. Bevin: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL ISLANDS (FOOD AND MEDICAL SUPPLIES)

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken by His Majesty's Government to provide food and medical supplies, including anaesthetics, to the inhabitants of the Channel Islands who are now unable to import the necessities of life; and in particular, whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to invite the collaboration of the International Red Cross with a view to the supply and distribution of such necessities to the islanders under their supervision.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am sorry I am not at present in a position to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Shrewsbury (Mr. A. Duckworth) and East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) on 2nd November.

Sir J. Lucas: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possible evacuation of the populations because the last people to starve in the Islands will be the Germans?

Mr. Morrison: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that all the aspects of the matter are being carefully considered, and I am most anxious to do something as soon as possible. As he will appreciate, however, it is not wholly under the control of His Majesty's Government.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread public anxiety as to the position of our own people in the Channel Islands? When does he think he will be able to make a statement?

Mr. Morrison: That anxiety, of course, is shared by the Government. The facts are not easy to get. I cannot be sure, but I hope to be able to say something when Parliament re-assembles.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (SERVICE VOTERS)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the probable postponement until next summer or autumn of a general election, he will endeavour to make it possible for Service men and women aged 21 and over to vote at such by-elections as may occur in constituencies in which they are normally resident.

Mr. H. Morrison: After 1st December when the new electoral arrangements come into operation a Service elector will be able to vote in the manner provided by the law at a by-election in a constituency containing the address to which he has declared.

Mr. Driberg: Does that apply both to Service men on duty in this country and to those serving abroad?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE (PAY AND PENSIONS)

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Corporation of London has made a decision in favour of police who joined their Force before 28th July, 1921; and if he will


make a statement on the subject as to whether it is intended to extend this decision in favour of the police force in general.

Mr. H. Morrison: The Police Pensions Act, 1921, included a special provision that the application of the Act to the City of London police force should not prejudice any right possessed by any member of the force at the date of the passing of the Act—that is the 28th July, 1921. The City of London police authority were recently advised that the effect of this provision was that members of the force who were serving before the 28th July, 1921, were entitled, if they wished, to have their pensions assessed in accordance with the statutory provisions which applied to the force before that date. The section under which this action was taken applies only to the City of London police force; and, as regards other police forces, there is nothing I can usefully add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) on 28th September.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the extra years of service were made at the time of great difficulty in the police force, and that those extra years bear very hardly indeed on a great many of the men?

Mr. Morrison: The situation in the City of London, I am afraid, was somewhat fortuitous, and I am not sure it was intended to work out as it has done. I do not think I can add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Lincoln.

Mr. Liddall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply caused considerable discontent among the police force throughout the country?

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered some revision of the basic police pay, in view of the increase of the cost of living and, in particular, some revision of the terms on which recruits now enter the service.

Mr. H. Morrison: As my hon. Friend is, no doubt, aware, the regular police are receiving, in addition to their basic pay, a pensionable war supplement of 19s. a week. The question of the revision of basic pay, and of the terms on which recruits will enter the police service when recruitment is recommenced raises an

entirely separate issue, on which I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE WORKERS (DEFERRED PAY)

Mr. Hubbard: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will authorise payment of deferred pay to members of the Civil Defence who have been stood down and who are old age pensioners.

Mr. H. Morrison: The scheme of Civil Defence post-war credits, which followed the arrangements made for the Armed Forces, was designed to provide payments after the war. An exception to this rule was made in favour of allowing immediate payment to persons finally invalided out of the service, or in cases of death. It is not within my power to extend the provision for payment during the war to include such classes as old-age pensioners who leave Civil Defence Service on grounds other than that of final invaliding.

Mr. Hubbard: Will the Minister realise that many of these people are old age pensioners who may not see the end of hostilities? Could arrangements be made to treat them as a special class?

Mr. Morrison: I hardly think so. Of course, I cannot use Civil Defence to solve problems which are, perhaps, more connected with old age pensions, and I think it would be difficult, under the scheme, to make exceptions of this kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — DETAINEES (RELEASE CONDITIONS)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the conditions imposed on those 18B detainees who have been released conditionally include the requirement that they shall abstain from spreading Fascist and anti-Semitic propaganda; if any action has been taken against persons guilty of breaches of such conditions; and if action is taken against persons released unconditionally if they persistently spread Fascist and anti-Semitic propaganda or take part in the activities of Fascist or other disloyal organisations.

Mr. H. Morrison: The conditions which I am empowered to impose on a person


released from detention are prescribed by paragraph (2) of Regulation 18B, and they do not include conditions designed to restrict propaganda. Propaganda which takes the form of conduct calculated to provoke breaches of the peace can be dealt with under the ordinary criminal law. That law is of general application applying alike to all individuals and to all sections of the community.

Mr. Driberg: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything with regard to recent happenings in Hyde Park, on Sundays?

Mr. Morrison: That is not the Question on the Paper.

Mr. Driberg: But it arises, and I am entitled to ask it?

Commander Locker-Lampson: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the anti-Semite is not, automatically, the enemy of England and the friend of Hitler?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE

"Jewish Standard" Editor (Speech)

Earl Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered the speech of Mr. Abrahams, editor of the "Jewish Standard," at a recent public meeting in London, a copy of which has been sent him, accusing the Government of Palestine of having an anti-Jewish bias and the Palestinian constabulary of being partly composed of former members of the British Union of Fascists; and if, in view of the damage which these untrue statements may do in Palestine in its disturbed condition, he will take action against Mr. Abrahams under the Emergency Powers Act.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have seen the report of this speech, and I appreciate the reasons which had led my Noble Friend to bring-it to my notice. The decision whether proceedings should be taken does not, however, rest with me, and I am, therefore, sending the papers to the proper authorities for consideration.

Mr. Mander: Will my right hon. Friend not countenance the idea that we should try to put into prison those people with whose ideas we do not happen to agree?

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask for your protection on the charge made by the hon.

Gentleman; and I would call attention to the fact that the gentleman in question has subsequently condoned, in an article which he wrote in his paper, murder in Palestine. I ask that the hon. Gentleman who has made a most serious charge against me, should be asked to withdraw it.

Mr. Mander: I ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker, against the Noble Lord, and call upon him to withdraw the disgraceful charge he has made against me.

Mr. Speaker: It is unfortunate when people, in asking supplementary questions, make personal allegations at Question Time, and I deprecate it.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Terrorist Acts (Debate)

Earl Winterton: asked the Prime Minister if he will afford the House an early opportunity to discuss terrorist outrages in and emanating from Palestine and the measures to be taken to deal with the situation.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I should think the Debate on the Address, might well furnish a suitable opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD SAFETY (ALLIED FORCES' VEHICLES)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many proceedings have been taken or charges laid against the drivers of Allied vehicles for driving dangerously or exceeding the authorised speed limits; and in how many cases have punishments been inflicted.

Mr. H. Morrison: I regret that the information asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend is not available.

Sir T. Moore: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the machinery at present in force is adequate to deal with dangerous driving on the streets, especially in London?

Mr. Morrison: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEGLECTED CHILDREN (HOMES)

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to numbers of cases of children living under neglect in insanitary conditions for


whom 'no satisfactory homes are at present available and to the difficulty experienced by magistrates in dealing with such cases of cruelty and neglect, because of the absence of provisions for securing the welfare of the children; and what steps are being taken to remedy the difficulty.

Mr. H. Morrison: My hon. Friend has sent me a communication from which it appears that in a particular area difficulty is being experienced in finding for neglected children either foster parents or accommodation in a suitable institution. I am in communication with the local authority, on whom the responsibility rests for making provision for such children, and I will communicate further with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Mr. Harvey: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that this is not confined to one area? Similar difficulties occur elsewhere, and there is urgent need for remand homes and for approved schools, for neglected children against whom there is no charge, and who ought not to be put in the same place as delinquent children.

Mr. Morrison: I quite agree with my hon. Friend that there are shortcomings. It is, of course, a local authorities' service, and I have no powers of compulsion. There are great difficulties about labour and material during war time. I am conscious of the shortcomings, and will do all I can to meet them.

Oral Answers to Questions — L.C.C. REMAND HOME (MAGISTRATE'S STATEMENT)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the statement of the magistrate of the Juvenile Court, Tower Bridge, on 14th November, that a child of seven removed from her own home pending the trial of her parents was placed by the L.C.C. in a remand home in which she shared lessons and water-closets with girls aged 14–17 years, some of whom bad been convicted of crime and many of whom were prostitutes suffering from venereal disease; and whether he has made inquiries into these allegations.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have seen the statement and am making inquiries into the matter.

Mr. Keeling: As the Home Office inspects these homes, and is thus involved in the matter, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of having any inquiry made by an independent person?

Mr. Morrison: That is one of the points that obviously I ought to consider, but the sparks are flying about at the moment. I must get rather more facts, first, to see whether an inquiry is desirable. If it proves to be desirable then certainly the inquiry will have to be of an independent character.

Mr. Lipson: Can the Minister say that if an inquiry takes place it will be held in public?

Mr. Morrison: I should have to consider that.

Sir Irving Albery: Can the Minister say whether any welfare visitors visit these remand homes?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that this matter arises in regard to welfare visitors.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the Minister aware that there is one incontestable fact, and that is that there is great public anxiety on this question?

Mr. Morrison: There is a lot of publicity about it.

Sir Harold Webbe: Can the Minister say on what date the last visit was made by one of his inspectors to this remand home?

Mr. Morrison: No, I cannot.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (by Private Notice): asked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to the contempt of a magistrate's court by Colonel Eton, Assistant Education Officer of the London County Council, by scandalising the court of Mr. John Watson, Justice of the Peace, Chairman of a Juvenile Police Court, in asserting that he had misused his judicial position for the purpose of criticising and abusing the London County Council; and whether the Attorney-General proposes to move for a Writ of Attachment on Colonel Eton?

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for calling my attention to this matter, and I am inquiring into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (RELAXATION OF RESTRICTIONS)

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the change in the war situation, he is now prepared to review such of the special war-time restrictions upon aliens as can be relaxed without prejudice to the national interest.

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir, After consultation with the Service Departments and the security authorities, I feel justified in doing away with certain restrictions imposed on aliens when the risk of invasion was imminent. I have revoked, with effect from to-morrow, the Aliens Protected Areas Orders which prohibited aliens from entering or remaining in certain areas without police permission. The prohibition on entry into these areas which has been imposed on certain persons under Defence Regulations 18A and 18B will automatically lapse on repeal of these Orders. I also propose very shortly to revoke the Aliens (Movement Restriction) Orders which impose a curfew and prohibit the use of vehicles without a permit. The majority of aliens have already received exemption from these restrictions but the effect of the new Order will be to remove them from nearly all the remainder. A small number of aliens will remain subject to the special restrictions imposed on enemy aliens by Articles 6A or 9A of the Aliens Order (or both). I still think it advisable to maintain restrictions on these individuals. Those who are subject to Article 9A will therefore still require to obtain a police permit to have a motor vehicle and those subject to Article 6A will also be subject to a curfew.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Is it not equally important to preserve freedom for our own people?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS (CONFINEMENT IN CELLS)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will relieve the situation in those prisons where prisoners are kept locked in their cells for 17 hours on week-days and 22 on Sundays.

Mr. H. Morrison: As I announced on the 6th May, 1943, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) arrangements came into force in

April of last year for an increase in the hours of duty of prison officers, to enable prisoners to be out of their cells for one hour longer on weekdays. As a result, with the exception of the women's prison at Holloway, prisoners are out of their cells for employment and exercise for a minimum of about 7 hours, 20 minutes from Monday to Friday, 3 hours on Saturday, and 3½ hours on Sunday, for chapel and exercise. These periods are increased in the cases of those prisoners who attend physical training and educational classes in the evening. In addition, substantial numbers of prisoners take their meals in association. I regret that, until it is possible to make a substantial increase in prison staffs, I can hold out no hope of any general improvement on the present position.

Mr. Davies: Does not my right hon. Friend think it is very lowering to keep these people in cells for 22 hours on a Sunday?

Mr. Morrison: The answer I have given does not bear out the statement in the hon. Gentleman's question, but, on the other hand, I agree that the position is not satisfactory. I am afraid it cannot be satisfactory until the staffing position is improved

Mr. W. J. Brown: Can the Minister tell us what steps he is taking to recruit staff, because the staff position is at the bottom of the whole unsatisfactory position with regard to prisons?

Mr. Morrison: We are dependent upon the man-power situation. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is doing all he can to help, but undoubtedly there are great difficulties, which will remain until the staff position is improved. Anything I can do to improve the situation, I will do.

Oral Answers to Questions — APPROVED SCHOOL (ALLEGATION)

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now inquired into the allegation made in a juvenile court that boys sent back to a certain approved school got the birch for several weeks; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. The headmaster of the school in question exhibited Press cuttings reporting the allegation on


the boys' notice board at the school and as a result the prefects of their own volition wrote to the chairman of the court contradicting the allegation. The chairman subsequently visited the school and on leaving made the following entry in the visitors' book:
Every credit is due to the headmaster. I am more than satisfied with what I saw and. heard.

Mr. Tinker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply will give great satisfaction to the school authorities, who have been suffering under the imputations which have been made?

Mr. Morrison: I quite agree with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISCHARGED PRISONERS' AID, LIVERPOOL

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take to put and end to the existing unsatisfactory position in Liverpool in regard to prisoners' aid.

Mr. H. Morrison: The unsatisfactory position to which the hon. Member refers results from the continued operation of the Liverpool and Area Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society, whose certificate of efficiency has been withdrawn, concurrently with the activity of the new society to which a certificate of efficiency has been granted. I share the hon. Member's regret at this unsatisfactory state of affairs, and I would welcome any step that could be taken to bring it to an end. I am not, however, prepared to review my decision to withdraw the certificate of efficiency from the Liverpool and Area Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society, and I regret that there is no action that I can take to remedy the existing situation.

Mr. Brown: Is not the Minister aware that the secretary of the newly-formed Prisoners' Aid Society has already resigned office, giving as his reason that he was misinformed at the time of his appointment as to the true local circumstances? Cannot he take some positive action to clear up this very unsatisfactory position?

Mr. Morrison: The matter has been carefully considered, and I withdrew the certificate after most careful considera-

tion. If the local people, with good will among themselves, can get together and clear up the matter I shall be glad, but I cannot restore the certificate of efficiency which I thought it right to withdraw.

Mr. Kirby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the difficulty is to get the officers of these two bodies together? Cannot he do something to bring them together and patch up differences?

Mr. Morrison: It all depends whether an atmosphere of good will prevails. If it does, I should be very glad to do anything I could.

Oral Answers to Questions — BELGIUM (BUSINESS VISITS)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether permits to visit Belgium on business grounds are now being granted; and how many applications have been received for leave to travel for this purpose.

Mr. H. Morrison: Belgium is still a military zone, and exit permits are not being issued for business purposes.

Mr. Hogg: While appreciating the reason which the Minister has given, may I ask if he can explain why, when I put a Question on the Order Paper last week in the same form, relating to France, it was answered by the Secretary to the Department for Overseas Trade and that now this Question, which was put down to the same right hon. Gentleman, has been answered by the Home Office?

Mr. Morrison: I have not the least idea.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEDICAL REFEREE, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the necessity for economy in transport, he will appoint a resident medical referee in Nottingham on whom workers in Nottinghamshire could attend, and thus avoid unnecessary travelling to Leicester.

Mr. H. Morrison: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the dermatological medical referee for this circuit and not to the general medical referees who, with one exception, reside within it. There is at present extreme difficulty in


obtaining the services of consultants for these specialist appointments. In fact, when this appointment was made, no application was received from any dermatologist residing in Nottinghamshire. I am glad, however, to inform my hon. Friend that the dermatological referee for this area, who resides at Leicester, has made arrangements at the request of my Department to visit Doncaster at weekly or fortnightly intervals as may be required to examine workmen who reside in the Northern parts of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire and in the Doncaster area. This will result in a substantial reduction in the distances which these workmen have to travel.

Mr. Cocks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that miners in Nottinghamshire feel that the journey to Leicester is not really necessary, and not likely to be profitable?

Mr. Morrison: I have done my best.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Teachers (Recruitment)

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Education whether the facilities to enable members of the Forces to become teachers on demobilisation can be extended to boys who have been conscripted for the pits.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Ede): All the facilities offered for helping men and women released from the Forces to qualify for teaching apply also to those who have been engaged during the war in other forms of national service. This will include work in the mines.

Central Advisory Councils

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Minister of Education whether he has yet appointed the Central Advisory Councils for England and Wales; and, if so, can he state the names of the members.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Minister of Education when he proposes to announce the names and composition of the Advisory Councils on Education for England and Wales.

Mr. Ede: My right hon. Friend has not yet appointed the Central Advisory

Councils for England and Wales, but he expects to issue invitations very shortly.

School Text Books (Shortage)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Education whether he has considered a communication from the Union of Lancashire and Cheshire Institutes complaining that there is such a shortage of school text-books that parts of their work may be brought to a standstill unless there is an improvement soon in the supply; and what reply he has tendered.

Mr. Ede: The communication from the Union of Lancashire and Cheshire Institutes has been received. As indicated in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) on 12th October, my right hon. Friend's efforts have been constantly directed towards securing a larger allocation of paper for educational books and it is hoped that the additional tonnages recently granted for this purpose will before long result in better supplies of text books.

Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that people cannot understand all these large and glowing promises about extended educational facilities when they cannot get text books to get on with the job?

Mr. Cove: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the allowances recently granted are entirely inadequate, that the Publishers Association is bitterly disappointed, and that it is still true that essential text books for examination in secondary schools are not available for the children?

Mr. Ede: The question of the actual allocation of paper is not a matter for my Department. We have made representations to the appropriate Department and an increase has been granted.

Mr. Cove: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in a large number of secondary schools the examination sets certain text books to be studied and that they are not available?

Mr. Ede: I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) has had some conversation with my right hon. Friend, as a result of which further negotiations are taking place, and I understand that through my hon. Friend's intervention, interviews are


now being arranged with various interested parties to see if the situation can be improved.

Teachers' Training Institutions (Vacancies)

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Minister of Education how many vacancies exist in training colleges and departments of education at the present moment.

Mr. Ede: All restrictions have been removed on the total numbers of recognised students whom the training colleges and university training departments may admit, subject of course to their resources in the way of staff and accommodation. It is, therefore, impossible to say how many more students these institutions can accept, though my latest information is that most of the training colleges are full.

Educational Reconstruction (United Nations)

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Minister of Education how many Governments have ratified the tentative draft constitution circulated among them some seven months ago for a United Nations Organisation for Educational Reconstruction; and, in particular, what action has been taken by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Ede: This draft has been circulated for the preliminary comments of the Governments, 14 of whom have commented favourably upon the project. A formal invitation to the Governments concerned, including H.M. Government, to accept the constitution will be issued when a sufficient measure of support for it has been received.

Mr. Graham White: Have the Government in fact ratified the agreement?

Mr. Ede: The last part of the answer indicates the position with regard to the Government.

Mr. Lindsay: Have the Government ratified it?

Mr. Ede: The Government have not ratified it, but my right hon. Friend, who was closely concerned with the drafting of the whole arrangement, is very strongly in favour of it.

Schools (Attendance Statistics)

Mr. Viant: asked the Minister of Education if he will state the number of

pupils at direct grant-earning secondary schools, at aided secondary schools and at schools maintained wholly by education authorities.

Mr. Ede: The information required by my hon. Friend relates to 1st October, 1943, and is as follows:


Direct grant schools
93,724


Aided secondary schools
131,381


Local education authority schools
320,599

Teachers' Salary Scales (Equal Pay)

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Minister of Education whether he will give an assurance that before approving the new salary scales for teachers he will make it clear to the Burnham Committee that, in the light of any recommendations of the Royal Commission on Equal Pay, they may be subject to revision before the usual period of three years.

Mr. Ede: I am satisfied that the Burnham Committee are fully alive to the point my hon. Friend has in mind: they have properly deferred any consideration of the issue of equal pay pending the outcome of the Royal Commission.

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: Does that mean that the new unequal scales will not be binding over a three year period?

Mr. Ede: I think the position is that they have not yet been accepted.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (OFFICIAL POSTS)

Sir William Davison: asked the Prime Minister what is the total number of Members of Parliament holding official posts as well as the number of Parliamentary Private Secretaries.

The Prime Minister: Sixteen Members of this House have been given Certificates by me under the House of Commons Disqualification (Temporary Provisions) Acts, and one Member is now an Ambassador, making a total of 17. The number of Parliamentary Private Secretaries may, I understand, be put at 36.

Sir W. Davison: Does my right hon. Friend consider it desirable that the complete independence of such a very large number of Members of Parliament should be curtailed by holding offices of any kind under the Government, directly, or under the various Ministries?

The Prime Minister: So far as Members who have been given appointments under the Act of Parliament are concerned. I think it not only desirable but extremely advantageous to the service of the country during the exceptional period through which we are passing. I asked the House for these powers and gave full reasons. I think I have used them with restraint and well within the limits assigned by the House. I am sure there has been great advantage to the public from their use. It is not a practice that one could imagine continuing in normal times. As to the number of Parliamentary Private Secretaries, the House has been well aware of the practice which has grown up over many years, and I do not see that there is the slightest reason to object to it. It is a well-established practice.

Mr. Shinwell: While the Government may have exercised restraint in relation to the matter, is it equally the case that some of those who have been appointed have exercised the restraint which might have been expected of them—for example, the High Commissioner for Canada?

The Prime Minister: There is a Question on the Paper to-day, which, unhappily, has fallen into the unstarred section.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN'S SERVICES (POST-WAR CONTINUANCE)

Viscountess Davidson: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the delay in reaching a decision as to whether there will be a permanent women's service as part of the regular armed forces of the Crown after the war is causing anxiety, in view of the fact that the most suitable women must come to a decision as to their future careers; and when an announcement will be made.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my Noble Friend to the answer which I gave on 3rd October last in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward).

Miss Ward: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind the new point raised by my Noble Friend, and give a reply to that?

The Prime Minister: I do not know what is the new point. All these matters have to be settled in the future but the

whole progress of the war dominates, to a large extent, the date at which a decision can be reached.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS LEADERS (MEETING)

Captain Gammans: asked the Prime Minister if he will endeavour to arrange that the next meeting between himself, President Roosevelt and Premier Stalin should be held in this country in view of the fact that he has already paid two visits to Moscow and four to the American continent.

The Prime Minister: This point has occurred to me and my colleagues several times, and I trust that the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend may lend additional force to it; but I cannot be sure.

Captain Gammans: Does my right hon. Friend realise that most people in this country feel that he has done his fair share of troubadouring and they would regard it as a graceful gesture if President Roosevelt and Premier Stalin would agree to meet him in this country?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If it is pressure to support this proposal that is needed, my right hon. Friend can be assured of the utmost support from the faithful Commons.

The Prime Minister: I think these matters have to be left to be worked out as best they can. We may have our views in this country but, working with a great number of powerful Allies, we have to recognise that our views sometimes have to yield to those of other people.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR-TIME CONTROLS (RELAXATION)

Sir Edward Grigg: asked the Prime Minister if he can make a statement about the continuance of controls after the end of the German war.

The Prime Minister: As the answer to this Question is rather long I will, with permission, make a statement at the end of Questions.

Later—

The Prime Minister: It is not possible to look beyond the end of the Japanese war, and my reply relates to the period


between the defeat of Germany and the defeat of Japan. Until Japan has been defeated the war must have first call on our efforts. After the defeat of Germany it will be possible and necessary to turn ever an increasing part of our resources to civilian production. Thus we must make exertions to restore our export trade and to re-equip our industry. The shortage of houses, both permanent and emergency must be grappled with as if it were a war-time measure. Active steps must be taken to relieve the shortage of civilian goods.
As stated in the White Paper to be published to-day, the existing system of allocating man-power to the Forces and to the various industries will be maintained. Nevertheless, it is intended to mitigate so far as possible the rigidity of the existing controls over labour. Many of the war-time controls over raw materials, industrial capacity, agriculture, food, transport and so forth will likewise be as necessary in this period as they are to-day. In these fields also, relaxations will be possible and will be made whenever circumstances permit and in an orderly manner. Any other course would result in violent disturbances which might well lead to inflation; would be harmful to the economic life of the country; and would make it impossible to ensure that the Nation's resources are devoted to essential needs, and are fairly distributed during periods in which demand will still be without any economic relation to supply.
It is too early to forecast the stages by which control will be relaxed. But the House can rest assured that the whole matter will be dealt with in a severely practical manner, each case being considered not only on its merits but as part of an organised scheme. It is important in this phase that theoretical, ideological or partisan tendencies either way should be excluded, and the governing consideration in every case should be the public interest.

Sir I. Albery: Arising from the statement which the Prime Minister has just made, has he anything further to say about the restoration of the protection of the liberty of the individual?

The Prime Minister: That is a matter which might more properly be addressed, in the first instance, to the Home Secretary, but it is, of course, a matter which will be continually under review, as the

danger of the proximity of war recedes from our shores.

Sir E. Grigg: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, and assure him that its general purport will give widespread satisfaction?

Mr. George Griffiths: The hon. Member has not understood it properly.

Viscountess Astor: Will the Prime Minister assure the people of the country that houses will come ahead even of beer?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, certainly if it were proved that one necessarily excluded the other.

Captain Cobb: The Prime Minister has referred to the need for grappling with the housing situation. Could he give an assurance that we shall have at least one day before Christmas, in order to discuss the housing situation generally?

The Prime Minister: I certainly feel that there is a great deal of need for discussion, but the Debate on the Address may furnish an opportunity. We have only a certain amount of time between the date on which we meet again after the impending short interlude, and Christmas, and all those days can be devoted either to the Address, or to other special points. There are only so many days available, but I should certainly think that housing would stand high in that category.

Mr. Woodburn: Is it not more necessary that we should stop discussing, and get on with the legislation to get the job done?

The Prime Minister: We cannot have any new legislation before Christmas, but I certainly agree about the urgency of getting the job done. It is only that Parliament likes to take a hand in these matters, and very often gives a very valuable driving impulse, which the Government welcome.

Captain Peter Macdonald: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is considerable feeling that undue restriction is being placed upon our export industries in this country, in making personal contacts abroad? Will he, having regard, of course, to the needs of housing and other matters, see that these restrictions are mitigated in some way, in order that exporters from this country will have an opportunity of making personal contacts abroad with a view to securing export trade?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I certainly endorse the spirit of my hon. and gallant Friend's remarks.

Oral Answers to Questions — TROOPS, ITALY (ENGLISH BEER)

Lieut.-Colonel Profumo: asked the Prime Minister whether transport conditions will now permit the supply of English beer, in large and regular quantities, for consumption by troops in Italy.

The Prime Minister: Like my hon. and gallant Friend, I returned from Italy with this earnest request, and I gave immediate instructions that every effort was to be made to meet it. The War Office inform me that English beer with the necessary keeping-qualities is not at present available in sufficient quantities to meet the demands for all theatres of war. Local breweries in Italy are being developed as quickly as possible and other measures are in hand to improve supplies. I shall be glad to be assisted by the House in watching this matter with vigilance.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is the Prime Minister not aware that N.A.A.F.I. have for months past been telling the British public that they have secured breweries and are brewing in Italy? Could we not transfer a few English working brewers and get English beer brewed?

The Prime Minister: That suggestion will reach the War Office, which is naturally the Department to deal with the details of the matter, and they can look forward to support from the House in their praiseworthy task.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEDITERRANEAN FORCES (HOME LEAVE)

Lieut.-Colonel Profumo: asked the Prime Minister whether it will be possible to make the necessary arrangements for the commencement of home leave from the Mediterranean theatre, even on a limited basis, for troops who have been constantly in action, during the forthcoming winter.

The Prime Minister: I hope to be in a position to make a statement on this subject at the beginning of Business tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — KING'S BADGE (NATIONAL FIRE SERVICE AND CIVIL DEFENCE)

Sir I. Albery: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the end of the Parliamentary Session, he is now able to state whether a decision has been taken as to the issue of the King's Badge to personnel discharged from the N.F.S. and C.D.

The Prime Minister: I hope this matter may be settled shortly.

Sir I. Albery: In view of the fact that this Question has been on the Order Paper four times, could my right hon. Friend let me know when I can put it down again?

The Prime Minister: I hope that it will not be necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (SECURITY CONTROL)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Prime Minister whether, when information to Members of Parliament and the Press is refused on security grounds, departmental security officers are obliged to justify a negative attitude to those competent to judge from the widest aspects of public policy and that in no case is a decision by security officers accepted unchallenged.

The Prime Minister: I have been much puzzled to understand this Question but, after very careful consideration, I am inclined to think, upon the whole, that the answer should be in the negative. Others, however, have suggested that it should be in the affirmative. If my Noble Friend will elucidate this Question, I will endeavour to give him an answer.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In view of the fact that the numbers and influence of security officers have steadily increased throughout the war, and that many more persons are now concerned with security and censorship measures than was the case in the early stages of the war and at the time of Dunkirk, does not my right hon. Friend think that it is fully time to reduce the authority of these persons and recognise that the war is terminating in this as in other fields?

The Prime Minister: That does not bear a very strict resemblance to the Question on the Paper. The Minister


at the head of a Department is expected to know all that goes on in his Department, and if he is in any way disturbed by interference which is not from the War Cabinet or from higher authority, his business is to bring it before the War Cabinet, when the issue can be decided. Every Minister, whether in the War Cabinet or not, is entitled to raise such a matter. There is certainly no question of security officers having any authority against the War Cabinet.

Mr. Cocks: Could the Prime Minister put a Parliamentary draftsman with a gift for lucid expression at the disposal of the young Conservative committee?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Prisoner of War Labour (Norfolk)

Lieut.-Colonel Six Thomas Cook: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the shortage of labour for sugar-beet and potato lifting in North Norfolk; and whether it is possible to increase the number of prisoners of war at present available for this purpose.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Yes, Sir, About 900 additional prisoners have been sent to North Norfolk since 1st October; 100 more are on their way; and arrangements are in hand for posting a further 250 prioners to that area as soon as possible.

Mr. De Chair: asked the Minister of Agriculture what improvement has taken place in the supply of labour on South-west Norfolk farms in the last fortnight.

Mr. Hudson: The number of prisoners of war employed in agriculture in South-west Norfolk has been increased during the past fortnight by over 20 per cent.

Mr. De Chair: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction felt in Norfolk at the idleness of Italian prisoners of war working on farms; and whether he will arrange for them to be replaced as soon as possible by German prisoners of war who work much better and are under proper discipline.

Mr. Hudson: I am aware that some farmers are dissatisfied with the output of the Italian prisoners working in Norfolk. I am afraid that it will not be possible to supply more Germans in Norfolk in the

near future, since all the camps in that neighbourhood suitable for Germans are already full.

Mr. De Chair: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it is not possible to have more German prisoners of war working in Norfolk, because if they are kept under proper supervision the saving in man-power more than outweights the loss of man power we are getting from the Italians?

Mr. Hudson: It is a question of camps For security reasons the German prisoners are limited to certain camps, and there are no more of them in that area.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the statement in the Question that the Germans are better workers than Italians? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Why should he give such a testimonial?

Mr. Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a similar situation is arising in other counties besides Norfolk?

Mr. De Chair: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that Italian prisoners of war, who have volunteered to co-operate with the Allies, work better on farms than non-co-operators; why the non-co-operators are working in South-west Norfolk without any supervision or discipline; and whether he will arrange with the military authorities that these avowed Fascists are made to work under the same degree of control and discipline as German prisoners of war and are confined to their camps when off duty.

Mr. Hudson: On the whole the output of Italian co-operators working in agriculture is better than that of non-co-operators. Non-co-operators are working under the same conditions as applied to all Italian prisoners before they were given an opportunity to volunteer to co-operate and I am not aware that those in South-west Norfolk are without supervision or discipline. It is the responsibility of the employing farmer to provide supervision, except where the War Agricultural Executive Committee is able to supply a foreman. I understand that the majority of Italian non-co-operators in South-west Norfolk are working under military escorts, who are expected to check any idleness and ensure a full and fair daily output of work. Italian non-co-operators


at central camps are already confined to camp when oft duty and are, generally speaking, subject to the same control and disciplinary action as German prisoners.

Mr. De Chair: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is completely misinformed, and that these Fascists, who boasted that they would march through the streets of Cairo, are in fact strolling through the streets of Swaffham, much to the annoyance of the inhabitants?

Women's Land Army (Uniform)

Mr. Perkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether land girls on being released have to return every item of uniform; and whether any money grant is made to help them refit with civilian clothes.

Mr. Hudson: Members of the Women's Land Army are required to return it upon resignation or discharge. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. Perkins: Is there any reason why these girls should not keep their greatcoats?

East Mommerton Farm, Longford

Mr. Charles White: asked the Minister of Agriculture the amount of money expended on structural alterations and additions to East Mommerton Farm, Longford, by the Derbyshire War Agricultural Committee; and if the dispossessed owner-occupier of the farm has been consulted on the matter.

Mr. Hudson: The answer to the first part is £3,679, and to the second, "No, Sir."

River Severn, Lydney (Land Erosion)

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that, owing to a sudden change in the course of the Severn near Lydney, serious erosion of the bank has taken place, threatening a considerable area of land with flooding; and whether he is consulting with other Departments interested in this area to finance a plan for dealing with this danger.

Mr. Hudson: I am aware of the facts stated. Measures have been taken to check the erosion by tipping stone on part of the frontage affected, and behind the site of the tipping the River Severn

Catchment Board are constructing a new flood embankment the cost of which will be grant-aided by my Department. The situation on the remainder of the frontage will be kept under review in consultation with the Departments concerned.

Mr. Price: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the tipping of stone is insufficient; that the Severn bank is going back at the rate of one yard per day at high tide, and that something much bigger than that is needed to deal with it?

Mr. Hudson: It is a complicated matter which I cannot deal with by way of question and answer.

Ex-Servicemen (Training)

Mr. Chater: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can make any statement on the Government's intentions as to training schemes for ex-Servicemen desiring to enter the various branches of agriculture.

Mr. Hudson: As regards training for technical and professional posts connected with the various branches of agriculture, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 28th September to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). Training for practical work on the land will be provided by my Department in accordance with the announcement made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service on 6th April last. A scheme is now in active preparation. With the hon. Member's permission I propose to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement containing an outline of the scheme.

Mr. Loftus: Is my right hon. Friend considering the use of redundant aerodromes as training centres for this purpose after the war?

Mr. Hudson: Proposals for the use of aerodromes concern a number of Ministers and are under consideration.

Following is the statement:

As part of the Government's general scheme of vocational training for men and women released from war service who need such training for their re-settlement, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries is arranging to provide practical training in England and Wales. It is estimated a considerable number of new entrants will be needed in the first few years after


the war for permanent employment in the industry.

The following will be the main features of the scheme, details of which are now being worked out in consultation with the farmers' and workers' unions:

1. The scheme will be operated by the County War Agricultural Executive Committees, who will be responsible for selecting the men and women suitable for training from amongst applicants whose war service renders them eligible.
2. Successful applicants without previous agricultural experience will be placed on carefully chosen farms, market gardens or similar establishments for up to twelve months' practical training. They will be Government trainees, not paid workers, and will receive standard maintenance allowances (including dependants' allowances) from the State during the period of training. Employers providing training will be required to make a contribution to the State for the value of trainees' services in accordance with a scale to be agreed with the industry. Trainees will be accommodated on farms or in lodgings or hostels near their places of training. Provision will be made so far as possible for the wives of married trainees to be lodged with their husbands.
3. Suitable applicants with agricultural experience who wish to qualify as foremen, bailiffs, farm managers and the like will be given one-year courses of the farm institute type. A number of temporary training centres will be set up for the purpose.

Early provision is being made for disabled persons.

No special training arrangements for intending smallholders are contemplated. It is considered that all who hope to make a livelihood on the land and have no previous experience should be given training designed to equip them as ordinary farm or market garden workers.

When full details of the scheme have been settled an announcement will be made in the Press and leaflets will be prepared for issue to interested persons. Intending applicants need take no action at present.

Potatoes and Wheat (Acreage Payments)

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is

yet able to make an announcement about the potato and wheat acreage payment for the 1945 crop.

Mr. Hudson: I am not able at present to add to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend on 26th October.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: When will my right hon. Friend be able to make a statement about this matter, which very much concerns farmers and agricultural committees?

Mr. Hudson: I will do it as soon as I can.

Oral Answers to Questions — URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL CHAIRMEN (TITLE)

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Health if he will consider the advisability, in connection with post-war local government reform, of giving to the chairmen of urban district councils some dignified and historical title, such as reeve, warden, provost, or steward.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): I should be willing to consider the proposal if there were any widespread desire for a change on the part of the local authorities concerned, and a generally acceptable title could be suggested. I have no evidence that the matter is one which is seriously engaging the attention of urban district councils or their association.

Mr. Mander: Is my right bon. and learned Friend aware that in the past this has been seriously considered by the local authorities, and will he consult their associations to get their present views?

Mr. Willink: I think that I will wait until I am approached.

Mr. Goldie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the title "reeve" is the old-fashioned name for a high sheriff?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Married Ex-Servicemen

Major Leighton: asked the Minister of Health whether he will instruct local housing authorities when choosing tenants to give a preference to married men coming out of the Services.

Mr. Willink: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to Questions by my hon. Friend the Mem-


ber for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) on 26th October last.

Requisitioned Property (Weymouth)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Minister of Health how many premises in Weymouth have been requisitioned by Government departments and the local authority; how many of these are now unoccupied; and whether he will cause a proportion of those now unoccupied to be released at an early date.

Mr. Willink: Seven properties have been requisitioned by the Local Authority for purposes with which my Department is concerned, all of which are occupied. I am not in a position without extensive inquiries to say how many properties in the town are requisitioned by or under other Departments and how many of these are unoccupied. As regards the last part of the Question, it is the intention that all requisitioned premises shall be released as soon as circumstances permit, but my Noble Friend will appreciate that the fact that any such premises are at the moment unoccupied does not necessarily imply that they are no longer required for the purposes for which they were requisitioned.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will my right hon. and learned Friend kindly conduct the extensive investigations to which he has alluded in view of the anxiety of many of my constituents to return to their houses and business premises?

Mr. Willink: My Noble Friend should consult the Departments concerned.

Building Permits and Regulations

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Health, as the war is ending and owners and others all over the country are considering the redevelopment of property for post-war uses, has he instructed all authorities who formerly had the right to issue permits before building enterprises could be undertaken, to simplify their procedure so that one or two authorities only are necessary to grant all the required permits and to do this speedily.

Mr. Willink: No, Sir, but I hope in due course to issue whatever instructions are permissible under the existing law.

Mr. Bossom: Will my right hon. and learned Friend look seriously into this matter again, because it is taking anything from six months to a year to do work which could be done in six weeks?

Mr. Willink: I do not think much of the suggestion that the same work could be done in six weeks under present conditions. The matter is, however, under consideration.

Mr. Bossom: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is being done in six weeks in many other parts of the world?

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Health, seeing that so much building has been destroyed and so much redevelopment will take place after the war, if he intends introducing legislation which will do away with the former so-called "law of ancient lights"; and does he propose introducing Regulations which will enable an owner or architect to know what size of building can be placed on any site in future.

Mr Willink: I am not clear what my hon. Friend has in mind, but if he would be good enough to let me have a note on the subject, I should be ready to give the matter full consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Health how many old age pensioners in the country are still receiving 10s. per week basic pension and not receiving any supplementary allowance.

Mr. Willink: At the end of September, 1944, there were in Great Britain about 2,400,000 old age pensioners, including women over 60 pensioned as widows under the Contributory Pensions Acts, to or in respect of whom supplementary pensions were not being paid.

Oral Answers to Questions — WELL SINKING (REGULATIONS)

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the Minister of Health whether any Regulations exist to debar a person from sinking a water-well in any part of the country which he owns or occupies.

Mr. Willink: Local authorities and water companies must obtain either the


authority of Parliament or my consent to the sinking of new wells, but other landowners have an unrestricted right to sink wells on their own land unless the right has been restricted by local Act of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREATER LONDON (REGIONAL PLAN)

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he can now say when it is expected that the regional plan for Greater London will be published.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): General publication of Professor Abercrombie's report will be unavoidably delayed for a few months. I hope, however, within the next few weeks to issue to local authorities in the Greater London region a working edition which will contain the full text, but it will not be possible to include in this edition all the maps which accompany the report.

Mr. Hutchinson: In view of the importance of this matter, will my right hon. Friend now endeavour to expedite publication of this plan?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, I am trying my best to expedite the matter. The difficulty is purely that of manufacture.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Is the object of the Minister, in issuing these proposals to local authorities, to ask them to take any action, or merely for their guidance and consideration?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: It is to enable them to consider the proposals, and to let me have their comments upon them.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSION APPEALS

Mr. Shephard: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will state the number of applications for hearing at a pensions appeals tribunal received from the East Midlands area which have not yet been passed on to the pensions appeal office; and how many of these applications are dated March, 1944.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) on 2nd November, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Shephard: Can I have a reply to my actual Question which asked how many applications from the East Midlands area were dated March, 1944?

Sir W. Womersley: To keep the statistics separate would involve a great deal of labour. I am having the greatest difficulty in wiping out the arrears of these appeals, and I cannot spare any staff for collecting these statistics.

Mr. Shephard: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that complaints are being made about the length of time that elapses before cases get before the pension tribunal and that some of those to whom he gave a promise that they would get special attention are still waiting for their cases to be heard; and if he will take steps to expedite their hearings.

Sir W. Womersley: The general position is being met in the way I have previously explained to my hon. Friend. Of the four cases to which my hon. Friend has recently drawn my attention two will, I am informed, be listed for hearing in the week beginning 4th December. In another, the statement of the case was sent to the appellant on 13th instant for any comments he may wish to make before it is sent to the tribunal. In the fourth case my Department has been able, on further consideration, to accept the disability as pensionable and the appellant is being notified.

Mr. Tinker: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I urge upon him to get a move on with the tribunal, as there is a lot of ill-feeling throughout the country on the matter?

Sir W. Womersley: I have explained to the House time and time again, right from the time when the Bill was before the House, that there would be delay, and that was accepted by the House as the condition under which the tribunal was to be set up.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will take steps to make it known to the public and to the officials of his Ministry that decisions of pensions appeals tribunals are not final in all cases and that there is in certain cases a right of further appeal to a judge of the High Court.

Sir W. Womersley: The position is that, under the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act, 1943, the decisions of the tribunals are final and conclusive, except where the appellant or the Minister is dissatisfied with the decision as being erroneous in point of law and obtains leave of the tribunal or of a judge of the High Court to appeal therefrom. To refer in all cases to this provision which can only apply very exceptionally would, I am afraid, only lead to disappointment. My officers accordingly endeavour to discriminate in dealing with correspondence from unsuccessful applicants; but I am glad of this opportunity of adding to the publicity given to the provision. I might mention that in the large majority of cases appellants are advised by the British Legion or other bodies well aware of the right conferred by the Act in the special circumstances to which it applies.

Mr. Driberg: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask if he will bear in mind that one of his officials did erroneously inform a constituent of mine, in a case to which I have drawn the Minister's attention, that there was absolutely no appeal? Will he take steps to see that that does not happen again?

Sir W. Womersley: Yes, Sir, my attention has been drawn to this case, and the officer has been told that he was doing the wrong thing.

Oral Answers to Questions — FAMILY ALLOWANCES

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that the increases in family allowances for men in the Forces have been offset by corresponding reductions in war Service grants; and how, in view of the increased cost of living and general expenses, this is justified.

Sir W. Womersley: I would refer the hon. Member to Command 6521 where he will find the Government's decision on this point. Although the increases are taken into account for war Service grant purposes, this does not necessarily mean a corresponding reduction in the grant. I would remind the hon. Member that, apart from other improvements made in the scheme at the same time, there was a substantial increase in the maintenance standard adopted for assessment purposes.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (POST-WAR RECRUITMENT)

The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. GEOFFREY HUTCHINSON:
89. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is yet in a position to make any further statement about recruitment to the permanent Civil Service in the immediate postwar years.

At the end of Questions—

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): As this matter is one of considerable general interest I should like, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and by leave of the House, to inform the House that a White Paper will be available to hon. Members to-morrow, containing a report on this subject from the Civil Service National Whitley Council, prefaced by a general statement by the Government concerning both recruitment and other related matters affecting the Civil Service. I would only add that it is the Government's intention that an early opportunity should be given to the House to discuss the proposals in the report. The Government, for their part, accept the recommendations, and will wish to invite the House to support them in that view.

Mr. Hutchinson: Before final decisions are taken on the report, will the right hon. Gentleman take account of the widespread desire which exists in this House that the fullest possible preference shall be given to ex-Service men and women in filling these vacancies in the Civil Service?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes. Sir, I can readily give that assurance, and, as I have said, there will be no final decisions until the whole matter has been fully discussed in this House.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL EXPENDITURE

Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth and Thirteenth Reports from the Select Committee, brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [Nos. 120 to 124].

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed [No. 125].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

12.12 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: On a point of Order. I desire very humbly to protest against the inadequate time that has been allowed hon. Members to study the Amendments which have come down from another place. These were available in the Vote Office at 11.15 a.m. yesterday. There are nearly 30 pages of Amendments, quite a number of which are not machinery or drafting or consequential Amendments, but involving matters of principle. I do humbly ask your guidance and protection, Mr. Speaker, in submitting that it does not give hon. Members fair time to study the Amendments when they have to be taken just over 24 hours after being available to us. With all respect, I would ask you, Sir, for your protection against the practice of rushing legislative Measures through the House of Commons, before hon. Members can have a chance of really taking an interest in them which, as the Prime Minister said, at Question Time today, they like to do.

Mr. Speaker: So far as I am concerned that is not a point of Order. Hon. Members have to protect themselves, and they can always do that by dividing against the Motion.

12.13 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I have given some consideration in the 24 hours that have elapsed since the Amendments were made public, and I do not agree that with the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion about rushing them.

It was clearly understood that we were to get the Bill on the Statute Book this Session. I would congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on the way he has, in one series of the Amendments that have come to us from another place, fulfilled the undertakings given on the Report stage. So far as I have been able to go through the Amendments, he has fulfilled the pledges given earlier to the House. As to the remaining Amendments, I believe that in another place very full consideration has been given to them, and that there are improvements in the administration and machinery of the Bill on which, I think, another place is to be congratulated. So far as I and my hon. Friends are concerned, we shall support the Government in the Amendments before the House, and we shall do everything to facilitate the passage of the Bill as early as possible.

12.14 p.m.

Earl Winterton,: I think it only fair to the Minister to say that I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Penrith (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) has a very strong case. There are plenty of precedents for Lords Amendments being taken as they are being taken to-day. The hon. and gallant Member would have had a case if we were working under the Rule as to the Sittings of the House, but I understand that the Rule has been suspended. We can therefore go on as late as we like. In view of the handling of this Bill by the Minister and of the way in which his representative handled it on another place, I think it should be On record that in the opinion of some of us, the charge of the hon. and gallant Member is not sustained.

12.16 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: An important principle is involved in the request that reasonable time should be given to this House to consider Lords Amendments, and only unusual circumstances can justify any departure from that course. Therefore I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) ought to be criticised. In normal times it is reasonable that the House should have full time to consider Lords Amendments.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Lords Amendments to page 4, line 39, agreed to.

CLAUSE 1.— (Designation of areas of extensive war damage, and of land needed for re-location of population and industries of such areas.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 43, at end, insert:
and giving the prescribed particulars of his interest.

12.18 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Henry Strauss): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House may remember that Subsection (12) of Clause 1 confers a right on the owners of land affected by an application for an order under Clause 1, to receive certain notices if they so request and give an address for service. This Amendment is designed to secure that particulars of the owner's interest shall be sent at the same time. This is a convenient course, and I think we ought to agree with the Lords Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment, to page 5, line 9, agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.— (Power to purchase land for redevelopment of areas of extensive war damage, or needed for re-location of population and industries of such areas.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 24, leave out "two," and insert "three."

12.20 p.m.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The purpose of this Amendment is to increase from two years to three years the period within which, under Subsection (2) of Clause 2, an order may be submitted for the purchase of land in an area of extensive war damage even though no order has been made under Clause 1 declaring it to be such an area. The provision has had a somewhat eventful and at times rather confused history, and perhaps it would not be wasting time if I briefly explained the position. The main

scheme of the Bill is the declaration by local planning authorities of areas of extensive war damage together with concrete proposals for their reconstruction. When their proposals have been approved the authority may proceed to acquire the land by the expeditious process contained in the Bill. It will be seen that the emphasis is not only upon the power of acquisition; the main idea is that the local planning authority should have an approved plan of reconstruction before these new powers can be exercised by them. A term of five years was given in the Bill, as I introduced it, as the period within which local authorities might apply for these powers. An Amendment was moved to reduce this term to two years, and I resisted it in Committee on the ground that five years was short enough for local planning authorities to exercise what I may call the creative part of their task, to form worthy plans and discharge the planning as apart from the mere landowning function. The Committee agreed with me and the five years remained.
At the same time the Bill did contain, and I think it was prudent that it should, provisions whereby under Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 powers were given of an emergency nature not conditional upon the formulation of any project for replanning the bombed sites. These emergency powers provided that I could authorise the compulsory purchase of land in certain urgent cases even when there was no project for reconstruction. If the public interest appeared to be prejudiced I could make the order. This power to authorise compulsory purchase in advance of proposals for reconstruction is obviously one to be exercised with considerable discretion, because the whole abject of the Bill is reconstruction.
It was in these circumstances that I stated during the Committee stage that if I emerged with the main structure of the Bill intact—namely, the abolition of references, the new procedure in the Schedules for expediting inquiries and hearings and for the vesting of the fee simple—I would be prepared to consider reducing the period for these emergency provisions in Sub-section (2) to two years while retaining the term of five years in the case of applications for power to acquire which are coupled with proposals for reconstruction. My hon. Friends who moved those


Amendments accepted my undertaking and did not oppose or obstruct my reforms of procedure, which are so important a feature of this Bill, and I honoured my undertaking to them on the Report stage by accepting the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor), The effect of that Amendment was to reduce the time within which a local authority could apply for these emergency powers from five years to two, though we maintained the five years in the main structure of the Bill. I am not sure whether what I tried to make clear was fully appreciated, but we had a Division, and though I do not want to go into all those matters again, some hon. Members apparently thought I was reducing the period from five years to two years as it affected the whole Bill.
When the Bill was in another place the matter was re-examined and an Amendment was moved to reduce the term to five years in the case of what I may call these unplanned acquisitions. Debate followed and the consensus of opinion was in favour of three years, and perhaps I may be forgiven if I remind the House that three years is one year more than two and two years less than five. I take all the responsibility for this situation. I attended many of the sittings in another place, but I have duties here and elsewhere, and perhaps I was remiss in not bringing more prominently to the notice of the Government spokesman there the peculiar circumstances of this complicated transaction, the fact that we had divided upon the point, and that two years was inserted in consequence of an undertaking which I had given. I ask for the forbearance of my hon. Friends. I feel sensitive on the point, because I do not wish that there should be anything even remotely like a breach of promise made to hon. Members but that is the position, and I ask the House to bear with me in it.
Now let me say a word about the merits of the situation. The Amendment has come to us at this stage and I do not advise the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment. After all, the other place is another House of Parliament, and the authorisation of compulsory purchase for these emergency purposes is not solely limited by whatever term of

years is put in the Bill, because hon. Members will see that what limits the grant of these emergency powers are the conditions which must be fulfilled and not the term of years. In other words, the Minister must be satisfied that the acquisition is necessary for the purpose of dealing satisfactorily with the damage, whatever may be decided as to the manner in which the land is to be laid out and used, and that the postponement of acquisition would be prejudicial to the public interest. Those are severe tests and they must apply throughout, whatever the period of time in the Bill. It will be the existence or the absence of these circumstances which will really decide whether an order is to be made or not, and I have always had the view that these circumstances of peculiar urgency are not likely to arise more than two years after the Appointed Day. But if we give another year, and after the 24 months have elapsed an odd case does arise in which the rigorous conditions I have referred to can be fulfilled, then we may come to feel grateful for the existence of a revising Chamber under our Constitution. These are the merits of the case, and I have given my own account of the circumstances in which the existing situation arose, and in all the circumstances I ask the House to agree with the Lords Amendment.

12.28 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I should like first to thank my right hon. Friend for the very candid way in which he has informed the House of what took place in Committee and upon Report and since the Bill left this House to go to another place. He has told us what happened with the candour which we associate with him and which he has shown throughout the proceedings on this Bill, but I am afraid that I cannot agree that we should agree with the Lords Amendment. We disagree mast strongly—I myself and my hon. Friends who were associated with me in moving the Amendment in Committee and again upon Report. We had a very clear undertaking from the Minister on Report. I have always understood that Government responsibility was collective, that what one Minister undertook committed his colleagues. We have been told that upon more than one occasion in the proceedings on this Bill as well as on other Bills. Objection was taken to a Minister being required in the


terms of an Act to consult a colleague because it was said that that would be an infringement of the theory of collective responsibility. I really do not think it is sufficient far my right hon. Friend to say: "Oh, well, in another place the matter was reconsidered and they came to a different conclusion" to relieve himself of his undertaking. In my submission that undertaking still stands, and that being so, instead of inviting this House to agree with the Lords Amendment he should invite us to disagree in order that his undertaking should be fulfilled.
I am not entitled to discuss what took place in another place, but it may well be that the Minister of Reconstruction took a different view from that of my right hon. Friend. If that was the case, we should have been told so while the matter was before this House. Presumably the two Ministers responsible for the progress of this Bill have been in close touch throughout the proceedings. I want to ask whether the Whips are going to be put on in support of my right hon. Friend's proposition that we should agree with the Lords Amendment. If so, surely a curious situation arises. The Government Whips advised hon. Members to vote in support of two years. Are they to-day going to advise hon. Members to vote against two years? Surely, it is not fair on the Government Whips and, if that sort of thing happens, it is making this House rather ridiculous and giving a certain amount of credence to what I have always regarded as a most unfair suggestion that hon. Members are herded into this Lobby or that at the will of the Whips. That is a thing which I think we ought to dissuade the country from believing, but if, having during the Report stage been marched from five to two, hon. Members are now told by the Government Whips to "about turn," and march from two to three, I say that is making our proceedings rather ridiculous. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the merits of the matter; they have been fully discussed in both Houses. What I stand on is the undertaking which my right hon. Friend gave us and which was honoured on both sides, and I look to the Government to honour that undertaking to-day and to ask the House not to agree, but to disagree, with the Lords Amendment.

12.32 p.m.

Mr.Manningham-Buller: I do not think that the alteration from two years to three will make much practical difference to the operation of the Bill, but it seems to me that what we are being asked to do to-day in this House is a matter of some serious import affecting Members, not only on this side of the House, but on the other side as well. We were given, as my right hon. Friend has said, an undertaking on the terms that we did not move Amendments and that he got his Schedule unaltered. That part of the bargain was fulfilled, and the Minister in this House fulfilled his part of the bargain. As I understood it, the Government were committed to this matter unalterably. Now we are asked to retrace our steps because of an Amendment accepted in another place. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor). I would ask the Minister to adhere to his undertaking, an undertaking which was binding on the Government and from which he has not been released. If it be the case that, owing to the pressure of trying to get this Bill through in a hurry before the Session ended, some slip occurred, or there was a breakdown in the usual channels of communications, or something of that sort, if this was an error and steps will be taken to see that it will never occur again, and it must never be treated as a precedent, then I feel we might, on this occasion alone, accede to the Lords Amendment. But unless that is made quite clear, I think we should insist on the undertaking given in this House being honoured.

12.35 p.m.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: It must be a question of the utmost moment to this House whether obligations entered into by the Government can be honourably counted upon by the House. What we are now being asked to do by the Minister is to agree with the Lords Amendments which have the effect of going back upon a pledge. I think my right hon. Friend took this matter altogether too lightly. I think it is absolutely essential to that sort of relationship which makes it possible to work things in this House, that it should not he thought that if the Government or a responsible Minister has made a pledge that that pledge will not be honoured. Personally, I do not mind whether it is two or three years, but I do


mind very much that it should be made abundantly clear, if a mistake has been made. The Government should say it is a mistake and should ask the House, in view of the difficulties arising in the passing of the Bill this Session, to forgive them. On that being done, I myself, would support the Lords Amendment.

12.36 p.m.

Sir P. Harris: I am delighted to see this attitude by hon. Members opposite in relation to another place. No one is more sensitive than I am on the rights of this House of Commons. I welcome these reports and I hope they will be quoted on another occasion.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: Will the right hon. Baronet give way for one moment? No one has suggested on this side of the House that the other House has gone wrong. It is the Government that gave a pledge to this House which ought to have bound them in another place as well as here.

Sir P. Harris: The other place exists and has its rights as a Government. I happened to be present, maybe by accident, and heard the discussion in the other place. It asserted its rights just as we assert our rights here on a particular point of view.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Did the other place divide on the subject? Did not the Government give way?

Sir P. Harris: They were pressed for five years, and just like my right hon. Friend, showed tact and good humour and tried to get the Bill through. From what I heard, the Lord Chancellor at the time, in order to get the Bill through, came to this compromise. As it happens, of course, the compromise goes a certain way to meet my point of view, but I am not taking that line. I say that as this is practically the last day of the Session, I do not think it is unreasonable that the right hon. Gentleman, in order to avoid a bitter controversy between the two Houses, should accept this compromise.

12.38 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I sincerely hope that the House will not support the Lords Amendment. A specific undertaking was

given in regard to this matter, and I think it is a matter of considerable importance. I will read to the House what my right hon. Friend said when this matter was under discussion. He said:
 …I undertake, if I emerge from the Committee stage with the powers that I am asking for accelerated procedure and public inquiry, I will introduce on Report an Amendment giving effect to the shorter time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th October, 1944; Vol. 403, C, 1026.]
Following that undertaking—and I say this in no spirit of unpleasantness or criticism—some of my hon. Friends and myself got together and went through the list of Amendments and decided, then and there, not to press them. We stopped any kind of obstruction taking place, although there is a lot in this Bill which, frankly, we do not like. It was only on the undertaking of my right hon. Friend, as I have said, that we decided not to press these Amendments. I have here eight Amendments which we decided to cut out in the light of the promise given by my right hon. Friend when he accepted, in spirit, the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor).
I, also, was present in another place when this matter was discussed, and, as my right hon. Friend has mentioned what took place there, I also would like to mention it. It was an inadequate discussion; only three or four speeches were made, and then, suddenly, this proposal was accepted and put forward in this form. I think the whole of the Debate on this Bill has been conducted as a Debate of high politics and also without any kind of acrimonious feeling or unkind remarks. I can think of nothing likely to cause more friction than if this quite specific undertaking given by my right hon. Friend is not honoured. We have got 30 pages of Lords Amendments, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has pointed out, we have to get them through to-day. I am sure we shall all co-operate, but it is creating friction, and if my right hon. Friend after having given this undertaking, which we accepted in letter and in spirit, is not prepared to honour it, now that we have come to the final stages of this Bill, I sincerely hope that this House will not agree to this Amendment which has been sent to us from another place.

12.40 p.m.

Mr. Molson: I find myself more in sympathy with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) than with that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) who has just spoken. None of the hon. Members who have spoken against the proposal in the Lords Amendment have addressed themselves to the merits of the Amendment. Apparently it is not, in their view, of great importance whether there is a period of two years or three years. The point to which they have addressed themselves has been that of asking the Government to confess that there may have been some slight lack of co-ordination between the Ministers in charge of this Bill in this place and the other place.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: May I say very briefly that we base our argument on the fact that we were given a specific undertaking.

Mr. Molson: I appreciate what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry. He said he hoped the Government would indicate that there had been some slight misunderstanding between the Ministers responsible for the Bill in the two places, but I listened carefully to what the Minister said, and I think he went out of his way to say that he regretted what had happened, and that if it had not been for the exigencies of his office, and if he had been able to spend more time in another place, possibly this would not have happened. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members who are opposed to this Amendment are not going to ask for anything more than what I thought was the very frank admission on the part of the Minister that these things do happen. I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind the constitutional issue here. When I hear an hon. Member of this House say that a complaint is brought, not against the other Chamber of the Legislature but against the Government, I ask myself what exactly the opinion of hon. Members is of their responsibility. It is perfectly in Order, either in this House or the other, to insist upon an Amendment to a Bill, and I think it would be most unfortunate if it went out from this House that we disputed the right of any Chamber of the Legislature to insist on changes being made in a Bill when placed before them by the Government.

12.44 p.m.

Mr. Colegate: I cannot accept the argument of the last speaker, which seems to me entirely beside the point. There is no question here of anyone contesting the right of the other place to fulfil, in the very fullest measure, the functions for which it exists, but this is something quite different. The case here is that we have a very definite pledge given under circumstances which the right hon. Gentleman for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) and the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) must know, as well as I do, constitute a well-understood part of our procedure, namely, that Bills are got through Committee in this House by a process of what is in effect bargaining, not merely with people who are in opposition to particular points, but with others who wish to modify different Clauses and Sub-sections. This process was very well illustrated on the Committee stage of this Bill. It was fully understood that a good deal of opposition would be withdrawn if certain undertakings were given. I myself congratulated my right hon. Friend the Minister for the very skilful way in which, as I thought, he conducted the Bill through Committee. But if we are now to say that we must no longer rely on a pledge given in this House because it is interfering with the privileges of another place, the whole of that procedure falls to the ground. I appreciated the candour of my right hon. Friend, but I hoped that he was going to propose that we should resist the Lords Amendment. That would have been a fitting conclusion. I do not feel very deeply about the merits of the case, and I should regret anything which would prevent this Bill getting on to the Statute Book as quickly as possible; but we ought not to allow a thing of this kind to occur, when a definite pledge has been given and, in response to it, a considerable amount of opposition has been withdrawn.

12.47 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I do not think my right hon. Friend need unduly humiliate himself, or secure a white sheet for this occasion. But he is himself to blame for having given conflicting pledges on this issue. I remember that he gave another pledge, much earlier in the proceedings, that the period should be five years.

Mr. Colegate: That was on another Clause.

Mr. Silkin: No. In the discussions which took place with the local authorities he definitely agreed that the period should be five years, and he put that in the Bill. I can assure my right hon. Friend that there was no misunderstanding about the effect of this provision. We on this side relied on the pledge which he gave, that he would stand by this period of five years. Then my right hon. Friend got himself into the difficulty which faces everybody who gives conflicting pledges. While I do not want him to humiliate himself about this matter, I feel that he has brought the difficulty upon himself. I am not going to enter into the constitutional arguments, although I am bound to say that, as long as there is a Second Chamber, its Members are entitled to have their own ideas.

Mr. Colegate: Of course.

Mr. Silkin: The other Chamber has not given any pledge.

Mr. Colegate: No one has suggested that it has. What we object to is that the Minister—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak, and cannot speak again.

Mr. Silkin: Has not the Minister a right to consider the arguments put forward in the other Chamber? If the other Chamber is to be tied hand and foot by pledges given in this Chamber, there is no case for having a Second Chamber. The Lords are as much entitled to consider the merits as we are. They have come to the conclusion that three years is a proper period. It is true that they arrived at that conclusion by a process of bargaining, just as we arrived at two years by a process of bargaining in this House. The hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill) is, of course, quite alive to the implications of this agreement. He, very wisely, takes the view that, so long as my right hon. Friend is properly humble, this matter should not be pressed, because he realises that the effect of disagreeing with the Lords on this Amendment is that the Bill will be destroyed. There are hon. Members of this House—I do not think I am doing them an injustice—who would be very

happy to see the Bill destroyed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, there are Members who wish to see the Bill destroyed. This would be a very nice method of destroying it.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: No.

Mr. Silkin: Yes, it would. It would save a lot of trouble to get it destroyed by disagreeing with a Lords Amendment. The majority of Members want the Bill, and we can get it only by agreeing with the Lords in their Amendment. I hope that we shall agree with the Lords, and make quite sure that this Bill receives the Royal Assent—I hope, to-morrow.

12.52 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I would express agreement with what my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) has said. A point of some constitutional importance arises here. I find myself in disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate)—I hope he will not mind my saying so; one has to be careful now about expressing disagreement, because one is accused of making charges. The position that the Tory Party has always taken up is that the other place is a live Assembly, which has a right to do as it wishes to do. As I understood the hon. Member for The Wrekin, he contended that, because a bargain had been reached in this House —I thought the word "bargain" was unfortunate, but perhaps that was the case—between the Government and Tory Members who are not in agreement with the Town and County Planning Bill, the Lords were bound to accept that bargain. That is not so. I would go further, and say that if a Minister has come to an agreement with Members of this House who are normally supporters of the Government but are not supporting them on this occasion, it is not necessarily the duty of a Minister in another place to accept that agreement; he must have regard to the opinions expressed in another place. That is what I think happened in this case. The general effect of this discussion would be to give the impression—I hope it is a wrong impression—that some Members of the Tory Party wish to detract from what are the undoubted powers and privileges of another place.

12.54 p.m.

Mr. Dermot Campbell: I had not intended to speak on this subject, but as some of my hon. Friends have ex-


hausted their right to speak I feel that somebody should make our position clear. I think that the Noble Lord has missed the point of our attack on the Government. We do not in the least complain that another place has passed an Amendment, changing the legislation which we have passed. What we object to is that the Government gave a guarantee, and then accepted an Amendment in another place without making any effort to carry out that guarantee.

12.55 p.m.

Captain Duncan: I, too, would like to make my position dear. The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) said that certain hon. Members wished to destroy the Bill. That is the last thing I want to see. The opposition to this Amendment has been inspired by no desire for the destruction of the Bill whatever. I hope that that will be borne in mind by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton).

Earl Winterton: I never accused anybody of wishing to destroy the Bill.

Captain Duncan: The other point made by the hon. Member for Peckham was based on a complete misinterpretation of what actually occurred. What occurred in another place was that the Government accepted the Amendment without a fight, without a Division. If the other place, in the execution of its duty, had defeated the Government and inserted "three" instead of "two," that would have been a different matter. Our argument is that the Minister, having given an undertaking in this House, has committed the whole of the Government, in whichever House the Ministers concerned happened to sit. That is, I think, a point of some constitutional importance. I do not think it was appreciated by the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) that when a Minister gives an undertaking in this House, that undertaking commits the whole of the Government, and not merely those Ministers who are in this House. That is the gravamen of our charge against the Government. We do not wish to destroy the Bill, or in any way to conflict with the complete rights of the other place to discuss the Bill on its merits. In view of what has happened, I should have thought that the Minister would have come down to this House and have asked us to "disagree with the Lords in

the said Amendment." I personally wish he had done so.

12.57 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I know that the House does not wish to delay a decision on this question. On the other hand, I fully realise that hon. Members, in all quarters of this House, consider that an important point is involved. I certainly do not accuse any Member of this House of wishing to destroy the Bill. There are, perhaps, three different aspects of the question. The first is merits. About that I do not propose to speak, because, even among those who think that we should disagree with the Lords Amendment on other grounds, the majority think that there is nothing in it on the merits; and I am satisfied that, if necessary, I could prove that to the satisfaction of every Member. I will only say—I will come to the pledge later—that it would be quite impossible to ask the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment without going into the merits. The second point is the constitutional position. On that I do not wish to say more than that it is quite clear that we cannot, by anything we say in this House, bind those in another place in the actions they take. I fully agree with my hon. Friends who have said that that is not necessarily a defence of the conduct of the Government, if it is found that they did not put the matter rightly in the other place. I am not going to make light of the pledge that was given by my right hon. Friend—I am quite certain that when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill) examines HANSARD tomorrow he will not come to the conclusion that my right hon. Friend made light of it this morning.
I must, I am afraid, turn for a moment to the speech of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), which I do not think has facilitated proceedings to-day at all. On the Report stage, when the Minister fulfilled this pledge, the hon. Member for Peckham said that this took him completely by surprise—it should not have done anything of the sort—and that he must divide the House and vote against the Third Reading and so on. I was quite convinced then that the hon. Member must have forgotten what had taken place and so made this violent attack upon the Minister which has been repeated ever since in organs of the Press.


I thought that the hon. Member was doing it because he had forgotten what had happened. The fact is that, on 4th October, in this House, the Minister did give a pledge in the clearest possible language that, if he got the Bill through in that form with all the new procedure, he would introduce on Report stage precisely the reduction to two years which he subsequently effected, and the argument about five years in Clause 1 is, as the hon. Member perfectly well knows, quite a different subject.
The pledge was given, and the gravamen of the charge against the Government, considering the constitutional position, is that, that pledge having been given, the Government did not fight as they should have fought in another place to see that no alteration was made. Let us see what the position was. I crave the sympathy of the House, at least, for this—that it has not been an entirely simple or short Bill in this House. I think my hon. Friends in all quarters may realise that it was not an absolutely simple Bill in another place. One hon. Member says that there is a great deal in this Bill which many hon. Members in this House do not like. It is quite conceivable that there are things in this Bill which Members of another place did not like. The Bill was piloted through another place, and, when the Amendment was moved, it was to restore the five years. When people talk about accepting the Amendment, many of them speak as if the Amendment put forward had been accepted. That is not what happened.
In another place, the Amendment to restore five years was resisted by the Government, and, after debate, a suggestion of three years was put forward by a legal member of that Assembly and commanded general assent. I am not clear myself—perhaps those with constitutional knowledge greater than mine will answer this—that the Government must necessarily insist upon a Division in another place on account of what had happened in this place, but I am sure that what had happened in this place should have been well in the mind of the Minister then in charge and of others. I say it is not entirely easy, because hon. Members know how quickly things move in Committee, but, if there is blame in this matter, I think it has been taken by my right hon.

Friend the Minister, and I think it is only right to say that he may have taken it too generously, because I am not at all sure that, if any Minister is to blame, it is not much more myself, since, at that time, I was in another place and he was not.

Mr. MacLaren: Why did not the hon. Gentleman challenge a Division?

Mr. Strauss: My hon. Friend asked me why I did not challenge a Division, but that could only have been done by a grave breach of Order, and it is almost inconceivable that any hon. Member of this House would commit such an outrage in another place.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: It has been done.

Mr. Strauss: I ask my hon. and gallant Friend how does he know?

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I heard the Noble Lord say so.

Earl Winterton: No, no.

Mr. Strauss: Whether or not there is any hon. Member of this House who would have challenged a Division in another place, it would never have occurred to me that was the appropriate way by which I should leave the Government service. I did not bring sufficiently to the notice of the Minister in charge exactly what was the nature of the pledge. I will not assure the House that I had the exact phrase in my mind as I have it now, but I had the general purpose absolutely in mind and remembered that we had insisted upon a shorter period under this Clause, if we got the Schedules for the improved procedure through. Having given this explanation, and having said that, undoubtedly, although each Chamber has its rights, the Government is one, I think the pledge the Minister gave was fully honoured in this place. We could not guarantee what would hapen in another place, and the failure is solely a failure, I think, of the Minister and myself sufficiently to bring to the notice of those in another place what had happened here, and, with that explanation, I hope my hon. Friends will not take too grave a view of our conduct.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 15, line 40, agreed to. [Special Entry made in one case.]

CLAUSE 10.— (Power to purchase land for certain planning purposes.)

Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 8, leave out the second "a," and insert "any."

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This, and the next two Amendments—
In line 11, leave out 'between' and insert 'of'
and
in line 11, leave out from 'development' to end of line 12"—
are slightly more than drafting. If hon. Members turn to page 16 of the Bill, they will find that these Amendments, if accepted, will make paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) of Clause 10 read a good deal more simply. It will read, when these Amendments have been accepted, as follows:
(a) as a site for development of any class which is needed for the proper planning of the area of the authority, whether in its existing state or as intended, in order to secure a proper balance of development.
I think that is a happier wording than the words of the Clause as it stands.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to line 37 agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 13, at end, insert:
(3) A local planning authority may be authorised in manner aforesaid to purchase compulsorily land in the area of the authority as to which the Minister is satisfied that by reason of the land being derelict and likely otherwise to remain so for a considerable period, it is expedient that it should be acquired by the authority with a view to securing that it is brought into use.

1.11 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
During our discussions in this place, the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and others brought to my attention the desirability of empowering local authorities to buy land which is becoming derelict from industrial or other processes. I promised to consider it, and these words give effect to what was then desired.

1.12 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I would like to thank the Minister for the very full and entirely satisfactory way in which he has carried out what he said during the Committee stage here. I would like only to add that I hope local authorities will make ample use of the power that this Amendment will give to them to acquire, and restore to use, derelict areas, whether it be in towns or land derelict as the result of mining operations or as the result of iron-ore excavations.

1.13 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I also am very glad that the Minister has taken steps to bring into being this Amendment. I have often condemned the position of another place, and have often held that that assembly was of very little use, but on this occasion it has served a purpose. In parts of the country where there have been mining operations, or other kinds of operations, land has been left derelict, or disfigured with slag-heaps which are an eyesore to everybody. This Amendment gives power to the local authority, if they so desire, to take over that land. I accept it, for that reason and also because the price for the land will be such as will take account of its being derelict land. I thank the Minister for keeping in mind the necessity of dealing with this kind of thing.

1.14 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I am sorry that I cannot add my praise to this chorus. Although I am just as anxious as the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), there are one or two points upon which I would like an assurance. First, as to the importance of the words:
likely otherwise to remain so for a considerable period.
I give second place to no one in wanting to bring about development, and my only criticism of the Bill is whether it will bring about development, but there are occasions where land does remain undeveloped and which are not the occasions when people are holding out for high prices—speculators, who my hon. Friend above the Gangway condemned, as I do also. But there are occasions when restrictions prevent the development of land and when negotiations have to take place so that land will be acquired either for the development of the whole


area or in order to carry out a single development. I want my right hon. Friend to give us an assurance that the words
likely otherwise to remain so for a considerable period,
which I regard as very important, will cover the case where land is to be developed as soon as possible and where, if it happens to be derelict land at the time, the local authority should not get the advantage of that fact in acquiring it under the provisions.

1.16 p.m.

Mr. Kirkwood: I would like to have a word of explanation from the Minister of the words:
A local planning authority may be authorised in manner aforesaid to purchase compulsorily land in the area of the authority.
I am not thinking of mining areas where you have a disused mine or anything of that kind, or of areas where there has been an aerodrome, I am thinking of the position in my native city of Glasgow, where great tracts of land are derelict. For instance, land belonging to the Duke of Montrose has become derelict and overrun with bracken. Am I to understand that the local authority, either of Dumbartonshire or the city of Glasgow, will be in a position now to get that land if they want it for housing, not at an immense price, but at the value which the Duke of Montrose, for instance, puts on it when he is paying his tax upon it? The city of Glasgow has been exploited time and time again by the Duke of Montrose. It has been laid down that, unless they are prepared to pay a certain sum to him, they will not get the land, which has become derelict and over-run with bracken so that nothing will grow upon it. Will the local authority be able to get that land at the price which, say, the Duke of Montrose puts on the land now and which is below agricultural value?

Mr. Erskine-Hill: I want to thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the very handsome way in which he has met my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and others in this matter. I want it to be clearly understood that I can think of no one who will be more faithful to his pledge in every way and I want to thank him on this occasion.

1.20 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: I also wish to associate myself with the expressions of gratitude from hon. Members opposite. This Amendment will give the local authority powers which, hitherto, they did not possess. My local authority has been placed at a very great disadvantage by not having powers to purchase land in order to execute our town planning. This will afford us a great opportunity. As I stood in the centre of my constituency a few days ago looking North, South, East and West—whichever way I looked—I saw a patch of water or a large pit-heap that would be required to be taken into account for the purposes of planning. We have this opportunity and it is for local authorities to use it and make the industrial countryside, as I said on 24th June, a place of beauty and a joy for ever, and I thank the Minister for his assistance in this matter.

1.22 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I can only speak by leave of the House a second time but I ought to say how grateful I am to hon. Members who have welcomed the new power—it is a very beneficent one—of which local authorities are to be possessed, and I hope that they will use it to the full. I would say, in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) that he may be confusing undeveloped land with derelict land. This is land which has been destroyed practically by industrial processes and it is to deal with that that this new Sub-section has been introduced. It does not deal with the whole question of undeveloped land as such. In reply to the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), this Bill does not apply to Scotland, so that it will not affect in any way the relationships of his native city and Scotland, but I have no doubt that he will keep a vigilant eye on my colleague, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he comes to introduce similar legislation applying to Scotland, and he will get an answer from a much more competent source than myself.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): We cannot have a Debate on the position of Scotland.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment to page 17, lines 26 and 27, agreed to. [Special Entry.]

CLAUSE 11.—(Power to authorise purchase by local planning authority for area where land is in lieu of by another authority.)

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 31, after "authority," insert:
in this Section referred to as 'the promoting authority'.

1.24 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The next four Amendments are all related and deal with a point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) previously and I would like to say a few words about them together if that would meet the wishes of the House. The first Amendment is that the authority referred to is the promoting authority, and then there is a drafting Amendment in page 17, line 32, to leave out "that" and insert, "the promoting." In line 34, there is a long Amendment comprising Sub-sections (2) (3) and (4), and finally, another Amendment introducing another Sub-section in line 35. These all run together. They concern the relations of the promoting authority that is arranging for an over-spill area in the area of another authority. There are three points of importance with regard to an over-spill. The first is the manner of lay-out, the second, the rapidity with which you can get on with the job, and the third, the accommodation provided for the people who are to go there. You have not only to allow the authority in whose area the over-spill is placed to have rights but you have to provide rights for the authority that is promoting the over-spill there, the authority from which the people are coming. The general provision is that we hope it will be done by agreement but we have laid down a proviso for introducing variations and modifications in default of agreement. I hope that with that short explanation the House will appreciate the position and will agree with the Lords in the said Amendments.

1.27 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I only rise to say that my right hon. Friend the Minister has handsomely met the point put to him in the course of the proceedings in this House. The relations between an

authority which wants to enter the area of another authority are always very delicate and require very careful handling and the Minister has taken a good deal of trouble to ensure that provisions are incorporated in the Bill which will be fair to the authority which desires to come into the area of the other authority, and to the other authority as well. It is only right to pay this tribute to my right hon. Friend because I have had occasion to say other things to him.

1.28 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson - Hicks: I would like also to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and to point out that the very clear explanation he has given does not fully coincide with the marginal note to Clause 11; perhaps he will insert a comma or two in order to make the matter intelligible. It would be difficult to interpret the marginal note in the light of the explanation that has been given.

Mr. H. Strauss: My hon. and gallant Friend has probably got a print of the Bill as it left this House. There have been subsequent prints, and I have no doubt that in the final print of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, commas will be in the right places.

Mr. Gallacher: Does this discussion cover all the Amendments on page 17, as there is one thing I do not understand? It is the Amendment in lines 26 and 27 to leave out "recreation, worship," and insert "public worship, recreation"—

The Solicitor-General: We have already passed that Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With the leave of the House discussion has taken place on the two Amendments at the bottom of page 2 of the Amendment Paper and the two Amendments on page 3, and I was hoping to put all four Amendments together.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 17, line 35, agreed to.

CLAUSE 13.—(Restriction on purchase of commons and open spaces.)

Lords Amendment: In page 20, line 39, at end, insert:
(2) A local planning authority may be authorised, by an order made by the authority


and submitted to the Minister and confirmed by him, to appropriate for the purposes of this Part of this Act any land for the time being held by them for other purposes being land to which this Sub-section applies, that is to say, land which is, or forms part of, a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment (including any such land which is specially regulated by any enactment, whether public general or local or private, other than land being Green Belt land as defined in the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act, 1938):
Provided that an order under this Sub-section shall be provisional only and shall be of no effect until confirmed by Parliament, except as mentioned in the previous Sub-section.

1.29 p.m.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, after "regulated," insert:
or the use of which for any purpose other than those of open spaces is prohibited.

Mr. Woodburn: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in Order to move Amendments to the Lords Amendments?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes.

Dr. Thomas: I do not in any way wish to hinder the progress of the Bill, indeed, it is my intention, I hope, to help its administration and possibly avoid some friction which might arise unless note is taken of this particular matter. Many towns are making their schemes in regard to future planning and it will necessitate, in the case of many of those towns taking in a small portion of public land, very small portions probably, in many cases for the widening of the highway and possibly, on some occasions, for building purposes.
We all know that land of equal consequence will be substituted if possible, but the difficulty arises not only with my own Corporation, but probably with many Corporations with private Acts of Parliament relating to these public lands. If I might cite the instance which I have in mind, the Corporation of Southampton, perhaps it will be to the point. The public lands of Southampton are regulated under the Southampton Marshlands and Markets Act, and Section 72 definitely prohibits the use of those public lands far any other purpose than as parks, gardens, pleasure grounds, and so on, for the inhabitants of Southampton and for those who come there. The other place have inserted a new Sub-section which I think is intended

to enable the Corporation to obtain an Order from the Minister authorising them to appropriate land which forms part of an open space for the purposes of Part of the Bill which includes development. However, the new Sub-section says this:
… including any such land which is specially regulated by any enactment, whether public general or local or private. …
The word to which I would draw the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is "regulated." The reason for these words, I believe, is that a general Act of Parliament does not override a local act unless by express provision or by necessary implication. It will be noted that the word "regulated" is used, and I am a little doubtful whether it may be said that Section 72 of the Act of Parliament regarding the Southampton Marsh and Markets regulates the use of public land. What it does is to prohibit the use of those lands except as open spaces, but there is a difference in my opinion between "regulating" and "prohibiting." The Marsh and Markets Act with regard to Southampton common and waste land says:
… No part thereof be at any time taken or used for any other purpose than that of the public pleasure.
I do not want to press my Amendment unduly if the right hon. Gentleman will give me an assurance that it is a mere drafting Amendment. I suggest, in order to avoid contention later, that he should assure me there is ample legal cover in the Bill in regard to this matter, because it is important and might lead to a great deal of trouble in the future. I do want the Corporation to have this particular power, and this question applies, probably on account of many private acts of Parliament, to many other corporations which will want to develop their towns after the war.

1.33 p.m.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: I rise to support this Amendment because Southampton has had a very severe "blitzing," and it necessitates a very broad plan for the purposes of redevelopment. In order to make Southampton's re-development scheme of the standard we desire Southampton to have, there will have to be some encroachment upon these public lands. The word "regulated" does not seem to us to give the opportunity to carry out the plan already


designed. It is important that Southampton should in no way be restricted from this reasonable course in its redevelopment scheme from this point of view also, that Southampton is the gateway to England and is also the largest passenger port in the British Empire. I put those two points forward to support and strengthen my contention that the word "regulated" should have as wide an interpretation as possible; otherwise we may find that the Southampton Marshlands and Markets Act may restrict the development of the plan which has already been designed.

1.35 p.m.

Sir Robert Tasker: I only intervene for a moment because, while one realises the importance of Southampton, which is not only a borough but a county, there are other difficulties which I foresee. In Holborn we have Gray's Inn subject to town planning and Lincoln's Inn exempt, and there are many private Acts of Parliament which give power even to individuals, such as the new building erected a few years ago on the Embankment under a separate Act of Parliament. I would invite the Solicitor-General's attention to the fact that, so far as I see it, this Section will not provide for clearing away what will ultimately prove to be an obstruction. We ought to consider whether there are not certain private Acts which should be repealed, and I ask the Solicitor-General to consider whether this Bill is as comprehensive as it ought to be.

1.36 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: May I first deal with the point which concerns the hon. Members who sit for Southampton (Dr. Russell Thomas and Mr. Craven-Ellis)? I should like to assure them that the words "specially regulated," in my opinion, cover land which is regulated as respects the way in which it may be used, or which is restricted to a particular kind of use. In my opinion it covers the Southampton case, and the words have been drawn with that case in mind, and in order to cover it. I think that is as specific and as clear as my hon. Friends could ask.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Speaker has already ruled that this is not a Committee

stage, and we cannot have continual interruptions of Ministers.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: I wish to ask the Solicitor-General a question, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Am I prohibited from doing so?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may ask one question, but it must be clear that we cannot prolong this stage by having a series of questions or supplementary speeches.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: The whole substance of this Amendment rests upon one word which has been expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is the whole point. The hon. Gentleman has made his speech and he should have made his point then. I will allow one question but we must not go beyond Mr. Speaker's Ruling.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Thank you, Sir. Can we interpret the word "exclusively," which is in the Act of 1862, to have the same interpretation as the word "regulated"? When I look up the dictionary, I find the two explanations are entirely different.

The Solicitor-General: I have told my hon. Friend, and I can only give the House the best of my legal experience and knowledge, and the view that the Government has accepted after giving the gravest consideration to the point—I have told him quite specifically that, in my opinion, land which is specially regulated includes land which is restricted to a particular kind of use, even if the word "exclusively" is put in to enforce the restriction. I hope I have met my hon. Friends. My intention was to do so, and to tell them—which is all that I can do—that, to the best of my knowledge, the Southampton case is adequately covered.
With regard to the wider point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn (Sir Robert Tasker) I think that that is not a point on the word "regulated," so much as a point on the Amendment. I will say one word with regard to the Amendment, if I am permitted, when we come to that, and perhaps when I have explained the purpose of the Amendment, the fears of my hon. Friend will disappear.

Dr. Thomas: In view of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I am reassured, and I do not wish to press it further. I trust his assurances will prevent any contention later on and be not only valuable to Southampton but other corporations. Therefore I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

1.41 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: This Amendment is designed to meet certain difficulties in the way of getting into the hands of local planning authorities, for the purposes of their redevelopment and planning functions under the Bill, open spaces which already belong to them but are in their hands for the purposes of their function relating to open spaces and the like. There are two difficulties. The first is that the Section, without this Amendment, only permits of appropriation in a case in which the land in question is not required for its existing purpose, and it is very difficult to say whether you can ever predicate that of an open space. The second is the special statutory provision, of which I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Dr. Russell Thomas) for giving so clear an example, with which I have tried to deal.
The Amendment aims at removing these difficulties, and it will be noted by the House that it leaves the Minister subject to Parliamentary control. As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn has raised the question of acquiring the Inns of Court. Apart from my personal interest as one of the Benchers of Grays Inn —which I ought to declare to the House as in that sense, I suppose, I am a registered proprietor of that part of his constituency—I would suggest to the House that it is rather outside the field of this Amendment which deals with open spaces and the like, but that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has noted his point, and so shall I, and we shall both keep it in mind.

1.44 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: Will this power to purchase land in exchange be exercised rigidly, and only the exact quantity of land allowed in exchange, or will this

be interpreted with common sense? There should be reasonable justification in the new planning to give a rather bigger open space than merely replacing the open space sacrificed in the old area. The question is, Is it just an exact measurement?

1.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: With the leave of the House, I will answer my hon. Friend's question. That is certainly the spirit of the intendment of the Act. The only procedure I can think of is that of someone using the Attorney-General to try and prohibit them going beyond the Statute. I hope my hon. Friend will not hold me too tightly to every legal possibility that may emerge, but my view is entirely in support of the intendment of the Statute.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 21, line 16, agreed to. [Special Entries made.]

CLAUSE 15.—(Validity and date of operation of orders, etc.)

Lords Amendment to page 22, line 7, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 43, at end, insert new Clause A (Registration of orders as local land charges).
(1) As soon as may be after an order under Section one of this Act, or an order authorising a compulsory purchase of land under any enactment in this Part of this Act, becomes operative, it shall be registered in the prescribed manner in the register of local land charges by the proper officer of the council of each county borough or county district in which the land designated by the order or any part thereof is situated, or, if that land, or any part thereof, is situated in the City of London or any other part of the administrative County of London, by the proper officer of the Common Council of the City of London or of the London County Council, as the case may be.
(2) It shall be the duty of the authority on whose application an order under Section one of this Act is made, and of the purchasing authority under an order authorising a compulsory purchase as aforesaid, as soon as may be after the order has become operative, to notify that fact to the proper officer of any other authority by whom it is required to be registered as aforesaid, and to furnish to him all information relating to the order requisite in that behalf.
(3) The power conferred by Sub-section (6) of Section fifteen of the Land Charges Act, 2925, to make rules for giving effect to the provisions of that Section shall be exercisable for giving effect to the provisions of this


Section, and in this Section the expression 'prescribed' means prescribed by rules made in exercise of that power.

1.46 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment has been made in order that persons interested in land which may be subject to an Order under Clause 1, or subject to a compulsory Order under the Bill, may have the means of ascertaining readily whether it is so subject, and provides that such Orders shall be registered in the registers of local land charges.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 17.—(Disposal or appropriation by local planning authority of land held by them for purposes of this Part.)

Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 27, after "by," insert:
an arbitrator agreed between the Minister and the authority, or, in default of agreement, by.

1.47 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The effect of this Amendment is to give parties a chance of agreeing on their own arbitrator, and in default of that to go to the official arbitrator. Some people think that this save expense, and we thought it ought to be provided for.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 35, after "disposal," insert "or appropriation."

1.48 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment cures an omission to which attention was drawn by some Members when the Bill was in the House before. We promised to look into it, and we thought that we should add the words, "or appropriation," to make the Clause have the effect which we always intended.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 40, after "satisfied," insert:
,after causing such particulars as appear to him requisite of the disposal or appropriation for which his consent is sought to be published by Gazette and local advertisement not

less than twenty-eight days before he gives his decision on the application for his consent.

1.49 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This also is to secure an improvement which was suggested when this matter was before the House, I think on the Report stage, and it provides for the advertisement in the "London Gazette" and locally of any proposal of a local planning authority to dispose of, or appropriate, any building which is listed as being of special architectural or historical interest before the Minister gives his decision on the application for his consent, except when the consent is given subject to conditions that will secure that the building is preserved.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 7, leave out "will not seriously affect," and insert:
can be carried out without serious detriment to.

1.50 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This remedies a technical defect in the words as they were. It is, of course, possible that buildings of architectural interest can be sometimes improved by alteration, and therefore to define "preservation" in a way which would prevent every alteration would be clearly undesirable. These words better achieve our purpose.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 18.—(Power of planning authority to carry out development of land held by them for purposes of this Part.)

Lords Amendment: In page 27, line 5, at end, insert:
on the assumption that the land in question will be made available to him on such terms and subject to such conditions as may be agreed between the authority and him, or, in the event of their disagreeing, on such terms and subject to such conditions as would be applicable under the last preceding Section on the authority being required thereunder to offer to dispose of it to him.

1.52 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."


The situation with which this Amendment deals is one in which the Minister has to consider under Sub-section (3) of Clause 18, whether a person other than the local planning authority is able and willing to carry out certain development for the carrying out of which on land belonging to it the authority is given the Minister's consent. The points he will have to consider will be the terms on which the land is likely to be made available to him and the purpose of the provision as amended is to state what the assumption is taken to be. When it is examined and analysed the assumption is that the price at which land will be taken will be the full market price. We think that this is right and we ask the House to agree to this Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 27, line 11 at end, insert:
(4) Where a local planning authority propose to carry out any operation which they would have, power to carry out by virtue only of Sub-section (1) of this Section, they shall notify the Minister of their proposal, and the Minister may direct such advertisement by the authority as appears to him to be requisite for the purposes of the two last preceding Sub-sections.

1.54 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
When this matter was before the House some time ago we promised to consider the desirability of providing for advertisement of the fact that a local authority proposed to apply, under this Clause, for permission to carry out development. This has been found to be necessary in some cases, and this Amendment enables the Minister to direct such advertisement in cases where it is required.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment to page 27, line 15, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 22, at end, insert:
(7) A local planning authority may, with the consent of the Minister, enter into arrangements with an authorised association, as defined in Section thirty-five of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, for the carrying out by the association of any operation which, apart from the arrangements, the local planning authority would have power under this Section to carry out, on such terms (including terms as to the making of payments or loans

by the authority to the association) as may be specified in the arrangements:
Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall he construed as authorising such an association to carry out any operation which they would not have power to carry out apart from this Sub-section.

1.55 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The question was raised in another place of the transfer of the powers of the local planning authority to an authorised association, and the direct payment of grants to an association. This Amendment, we hope, avoids difficulties by leaving the responsibility for the exercise of the powers, under the Bill, with the local planning authority, and gives that authority power to make arrangements for actual development to be carried out by an authorised association. I think it will be the general view that that is a more suitable way of dealing with the problem of using an association.

1.56 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: While I do not want to object to this Amendment which has been carried in another place, it does raise a difficulty for the Ministry if there is a recalcitrant authority which is not prepared properly to exercise their powers. I would like to know whether the Government have power to compel such an authority to exercise their powers, if it is found that they are backward in this respect? For instance, the Ministry might want eventually to set up a housing association in order to carry out, on a grander scale, the building of houses, and under the Statute it would appear to me that the Government would be deprived of authority to hand over to such an association any powers to take action under this Clause, and that the local authority might have power to obstruct in such a case. I would like to be assured on that point.

1.57 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I am not quite certain whether I have fully grasped the hon. Member's point, but I think he will find that it is met by the fact that what this authorises is agreement between the local authority, whose rights and duties are defined under this Bill and other enactments, and an authorised association, as defined. The terms of that agreement can


provide, I think, for all the matters that the hon. Member has in view and, of course, these terms are subject to the scrutiny of the Minister, who will not give his consent unless he is satisfied that all proper provision has been made to secure that no ill-effects will result from entry into such an agreement.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

CLAUSE 20.—(Authorisation of development on land acquired for purposes of this Part, notwithstanding interference with easements, etc.)

Lords Amendment: In line 43, after "planning," insert "or highway."

1.58 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment, with two later Amendments to which we shall shortly come, is to ensure that the provisions of Clause 20, which enable development conforming with planning control to be carried out notwithstanding interference with easements apply to land acquired or appropriated by local highway authorities in the same way as to development on land acquired or appropriated by local planning authorities.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords Amendments to page 28, line 40, agreed to. [Special Entries made.]

CLAUSE 21—(Power to extinguish highways over land acquired for purposes of this Part.)

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 26, at end, insert:
() Where the Minister is satisfied that the construction or improvement of a road is or will be needed in consequence of the extinguishment under this Section of a public right of way, the provisions of Section three of this Act shall have effect as they have effect where the Minister is satisfied that the construction or improvement of a road is needed as mentioned in Sub-section (1) of that Section.

1.59 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment meets a promise given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone

(Sir J. Lamb) when he raised this point at the instance of the County Councils' Association. Its object is to enable the local highway authority to purchase land compulsorily for the construction or improvement of a road which is needed in consequence of the stopping up of a highway under this scheme. It would often be impracticable to stop up a highway which, under the present position, prevents necessary development being carried out unless a new highway is provided to replace it, and it is almost common form that where highways are stopped up under a planning scheme provision ought to be made for a new highway.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 36, at end, insert:
so, however, that the said power shall not be exercisable, as respects the whole or any part of the line, after the expiration of a period of three months from the date on which the right of way is extinguished unless before the expiration of that period the Postmaster-General has given notice to the local planning or highway authority of his intention to remove the line or that part thereof, as the case may be;
(b) the Postmaster-General may by notice to the local planning or highway authority in that behalf abandon the said line or any part thereof, and shall be deemed, as respects the line or any part thereof, to have abandoned it at the expiration of the said period of three months unless before the expiration of that period he has removed it or given notice of his intention to remove it

2.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I would like to explain the general import of what I may call the Postmaster-General Amendments. I think it would be for the convenience of the House, and then we could probably take this Amendment and the following Amendments together. The effect of the provision of the Bill, as it now stands, is that the Post-master-General retained permanently the right to remove telegraph posts or lines on the stopping up of a highway, under this Clause, and, normally, the Post-master-General was entitled to recover the cost of removal from the local planning authority or the highway authority, as the case may be.


The effect of the Amendments is, first, to require the Postmaster-General to decide within three months whether he exercises his power of removal or abandons the line; secondly, if he does not decide to exercise his power of removal the apparatus vests in the highway authority or planning authority and any obligation under the Telegraphs Act ceases to apply. Thirdly, the costs that the Postmaster-General is entitled to recover are limited to those incurred in the provision of a line in substitution for the old line and any necessary connection. I think the House will agree that the Postmaster-General has not come well out of the amended proposals but that they do justice and ensure practicality between the central Government and the local authority.

Mr. Tinker: What difference does it make about the cost? I take it that the Post Office is a public administration and the cost comes from the Exchequer. What is the difference in transferring one cost to the other? It all seems to me to come out of the same purse.

The Solicitor-General: The Post Office is, of course, specially treated in the Budget now. It is a self-supporting Department and one has to cost and budget accurately to see whether it is doing that. Similarly the local authority has to keep its accounts and see how it is functioning. It is so serious a point that in the case of the Postmaster-General v. the Corporation of Liverpool in 1923 the local authority and the Postmaster-General fought it so hard that it went right up to the House of Lords to see who would bear the cost. I shall be pleased to explain it to the hon. Member if I can see him later on.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 34, line 36, agreed to.

CLAUSE 26.—(Provisions as to burial grounds.)

Lords Amendment: In page 34, line 45, at beginning, insert:
(1) Any consecrated land, whether or not including any building, which has been acquired or appropriated by a local planning authority for the purposes of this Part of this Act, or which has been acquired by a Minister thereunder, may, subject to the provisions of this Section, be used in any manner, whether or not involving the erection, construction or carry-

ing out, or maintenance, of any building or work—

(a) in the case of land acquired by a local planning or highway authority, by that authority or by any other person, if that use conforms with planning control, or
(b) in the case of land acquired by a Minister, by him or on his behalf for any purpose for which he acquired the land,

notwithstanding any obligation or restriction imposed under ecclesiastical law or otherwise as respects such land:
Provided that the provisions of Sub-section (4) of this Section shall have effect to the exclusion of the provisions of this Sub-section as respects consecrated land being or forming part of a burial ground.
(2) Any use of consecrated land authorised by the preceding Sub-section, and the use of any land, not being consecrated land, acquired or appropriated as therein mentioned which at the time of acquisition or appropriation included any church or other building used or formerly used for religious worship or the site thereof, shall be subject to compliance with the prescribed requirements with respect to the removal and reinterment of any human remains and the disposal of monuments or other memorials, and of fixtures and furnishing, and, in the case of consecrated land, subject to such provisions as may be prescribed for prohibiting or restricting the use of the land, either absolutely or until the prescribed consent has been obtained, so long as any church or other building used or formerly used for religious worship, or any part thereof, remains on the land.
(3) Any regulations made for the purposes of the last preceding Sub-section—

(a) shall contain such provisions as appear to the Minister to be requisite for securing that any use of land which is subject to compliance with the regulations shall, as nearly as may be, be subject to the like control as is imposed by law in the case of a similar use authorised by an enactment other than this Act or by a Measure or as it would be proper to impose on a disposal of the land in question otherwise than in pursuance of an enactment or Measure;
(b) shall contain requirements relating to the disposal of any such land as is mentioned in the last preceding Sub-section such as appear to the Minister requisite for securing that the provisions of that Sub-section shall be complied with in relation to the use of the land; and
(c) may contain such incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions as to the closing of registers) as appear to the Minister to be expedient for the purposes of the regulations."

2.3 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This has been fully considered and agreed with the Bishop of London and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and its object is to see that Church property,


whether consecrated or unconsecrated, is treated in a proper manner. Without this Clause there would be a serious defect under the Bill and it would be very difficult to deal with the land having regard to a great number of other Statutes. As regards consecrated land, the effect of consecration at common law is to set apart the subject matter ad sacros usus for ever, and any such land or building acquired or appropriated or disposed of under the general powers conferred by the Bill would nevertheless remain impressed with the effects of consecration and its user would continue to be limited.
The purpose of Sub-section (1) is to remove this restriction upon the use of consecrated land or buildings acquired or appropriated under the general powers. I do not think I need go into the details of the numerous enactments dealing with this property because the effect of the Clause is to deal satisfactorily with consecrated land. Unconsecrated churches and buildings are not commonly sold. Where they are sold the sale is by voluntary agreement and the owner is able to secure such conditions as to demolition or user as will not be repugnant to the religious feeling or the canon law or customs of the Church concerned. Sub-sections (2) and (3) are intended to secure as nearly as possible the sort of restrictions on the use of churches and buildings used for religious worship acquired or appropriated under the Bill, as in the case of a sale by voluntary agreement must by Statute be imposed or would properly be imposed by the owner. I am afraid this subject is highly technical but it has been very fully considered and I think the Amendment meets an object which the whole House would wish should be met.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 36, line 27, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 36, line 28, at end, insert new Clause B (Authorisation of use and development of open spaces, etc., acquired for purposes of this Part notwithstanding statutory restrictions).
(1) Any land being, or forming part of, a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment, which has been acquired or appropriated by a local planning or highway authority for the purposes of this Part of this Act, or which has been acquired by a Minister

thereunder, may be used in any manner, whether or not involving the erection, construction or carrying out, or maintenance, of any building or work,—

(a) in the case of land acquired or appropriated by a local planning or highway authority, by that authority or by any other person if that use conforms with planning control, or,
(b) in the case of land acquired by a Minister, by him or on his behalf for any purpose for which he acquired the land,

notwithstanding anything in any enactment relating to land of that kind, including any enactment, whether public general or local or private, by which any such land is specially regulated.
(2) In this Section—

(a) the expressions "common", "open space" and "fuel or field garden allotment" have the meanings assigned to them respectively by Section thirteen of this Act;
(b) the reference to conformity with planning control shall be construed in accordance with Sub-section (3) of Section twenty of this Act, with the substitution for references therein to anything done as therein mentioned of references to any use of land, whether or not involving the doing of any such thing.

(3) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as authorising any act or omission on the part of a local planning or highway authority, or of any body corporate, in contravention of any limitation imposed by law on the capacity of such a body by virtue of its constitution, or as authorising any act or omission on the part of any person that is actionable at the suit of any person on any ground other than contravention of any such enactment as is mentioned in Sub-section (1) of this Section.

2.6 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, "That this House agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Open spaces are subject to special statutory regulation and doubt has been expressed whether, in the absence of express provision, an open space could be used freely in connection with a plan of redevelopment, even though its acquisition or appropriation by a local planning authority had been expressly authorised under Clause 13. For planning purposes it is essential that land of this kind should be capable of being freely used, notwithstanding subsisting statutory restrictions, once its acquisition or appropriation has been approved. It would be a fantastic position if the whole process of approval of use for a proper purpose for replanning should be defeated because, notwithstanding the appropriation, there were still a legal restriction on the use intended. Such approval cannot be given, of course,


having regard to the express terms of Clause 13, without Parliamentary sanction unless it is certified that substituted open space has been provided or is unnecessary. The new Clause removes all doubt that, once the process in Clause 13 has been gone through, there will be no restriction on the use in accordance with the approved plan.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 41, line 4, agreed to.

CLAUSE 31.—(Obligation to purchase war-damaged land where development permission refused.)

Lords Amendment: In page 42, line 13, at end, to insert:
(d) if he is satisfied that, having regard to the probable ultimate use of all or any part of the land as respects which the notice is to take effect, it is expedient so to do, may direct that as respects the said land or part thereof the authorisation to purchase and notice to treat referred to in the preceding Subsection shall be deemed to have been given and served respectively to and by such county council as may be specified in the direction in lieu of the local planning authority.

2.10 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The reason for the decision of a local planning authority on an application for permission to carry out development in the case of war-damaged property out of which the obligation of the authorities to purchase arises may be some requirement of a county council. When the war-damaged building is on the line of a proposed new road the county council would not wish the building to be restored. The association of these bodies represented that it would be better that the county council should acquire direct, and this Amendment makes that provision.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Amendments to page 44, line 1, agreed to. [Special Entry in one case.]

Lords Amendment: In page 44, line 7, at end, insert:
(10) A county council may contribute towards the expenses incurred by a local planning authority under this Section, and Section forty-nine of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932 (which provides for the manner in which expenses of county councils under that Act are to be defrayed and confers

on county councils power to borrow), except the first proviso thereto, shall apply to expenses incurred by a county council under this Sub-section as it applies to such of their expenses as are mentioned in the said Section forty- nine.

2.12 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.".
This Amendment was made at the request of the County Councils Association and it enables a county council to contribute towards expenses incurred by a local planning authority under the Clause and to borrow money for the purpose. The reasons are the same as the House has already appreciated which have made it necessary to enable a county council to purchase the land in question in some cases. Where the ground of the decision is interim development which makes a contribution necessary for the purposes of the county council, the local planning authority might very often be unwilling to bear the cost. This Amendment meets the difficulty.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 44, line 12, agreed to.

CLAUSE 40.—(Designation of buildings of special architectural or historic interest.)

Lords Amendment: In page 48, line 29, at end, insert:
and may amend any list compiled or approved under this Section.

2.14 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Clause enables the Minister to compile a list of such buildings or to approve, either with or without modification, such a list compiled by other persons or bodies of persons. The Amendment is to meet a point of criticism raised by a number of Members when the matter was before the House, that the Minister should have express power to amend a list which he has made or approved.

2.15 p.m.

Mr. John Wilmot: I think this will be the appropriate stage to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied


that he has adequate powers under this Bill and perhaps earlier Statutes to do what, I think, he has the intention of doing, that is, not only listing and preserving actual buildings of artistic or historic interest, but also preserving them by preventing unsightly or damaging structures being erected in their vicinity. The Minister will remember that on the last occasion when we were discussing this matter I instanced Mornington Crescent, where a factory was built in the middle, completely ruining the plan. The Minister was sympathetic and said he would look at his powers and see if there was anything he could do to strengthen them. As there is nothing in the Lords Amendments, can he give us an assurance that he has the powers?

Mr. H. Strauss: If I have the leave of the House to reply, I would say that I do not think it would be in Order to refer to that matter on this Clause, which deals only with the list of buildings.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 48, line 34, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 38, at end, insert:
(3) As soon as may be after the inclusion of any building in a list under this Section, whether on the compilation or approval of the list or by the amendment thereof, or as soon as may be after any such list has been amended by the exclusion of any building therefrom, the Minister shall serve a notice on every owner and occupier of the building stating that the building has been included in, or excluded from, the list, as the case may be.

2.18 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, line 1, leave out "As soon as may be after," and insert "Before."
The point I wish to put before the House is this. A list has to be compiled of buildings of special or historic importance. It is generally agreed that that should be done, but—and there is a very definite but—it must be recognised that the moment a building is put on the list, although it may be safeguarded, injurious affection can take place in a certain way. The moment a building is listed no alterations seriously affecting the character of the building can be carried out for two months. If it is, there is a fine of £50 and a possible order for re-instatement,

and reasonable steps have to be taken to maintain it in a good condition. If the building is of special architectural or historic importance, no exception can be taken to that, but if the owner has any doubt that it should be included in the list because, for instance, it is a Victorian or an Elizabethan imitation of a Gothic house, or is not of sufficient historical value, my Amendment is reasonable. This provides that he should be given notice before the building is listed, so that, before the restrictions apply, he will have a chance of saying that it is not a suitable building to be put on the list and have these restrictions applied to it.
I can give an instance of this. A building which was falling to pieces, and which would have fallen to pieces in spite of the town planning authority, was bought for conversion into a hotel. Had the building been of great historic or architectural importance, I should have been against it being converted into a hotel and the first to lead a riot against such an action being taken. Actually, it was a border-line case. The owner sank all his savings into it, and he will lose every penny if he is prevented from converting it. I suggest that, instead of a building being listed and the owner having to apply for permission to convert it, he should have the opportunity before it is put on the list of saying that it is not a suitable building to be put on the list.

2.23 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment. 
I do so for the same reasons that my hon. and gallant Friend has put forward, and also for a slightly different reason. In order that the planning authorities can compile the they will presumably acquire some knowledge of the buildings which they are to recommend should be put on the list. Therefore, they will have to carry out inspections of the buildings and take some steps to ascertain whether the properties are worth going on the list. In these circumstances, an owner of property will presumably have some knowledge that his property is likely to get on the list. If he does not wish it, there should be a time within which he can make representations to the Minister. That is one of the objects of the Amendment.

2.25 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friends have clearly in mind the great distinction there is between the effect of placing a building on the list and the effect of making an Order under Section 17 of the Act of 1932, as amended by the Clause which we shall next consider, concerning that building. I know that both my hon. Friends share the enthusiasm which is felt in all quarters of the House for the maintenance of the architectural treasures of this country. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) said that if something happened he would be the first to lead a riot. One of the objects of this legislation is to avoid the necessity of his leading a riot and to make statutory provision for some other remedy. Let me explain what is the only effect of listing a building. It achieves two things. First, it requires two months' notice to be given to the local planning authority of any proposed demolition, alteration or extension. Secondly, it imposes on the Minister under Clause 17, Sub-section (8), considerable restrictions on what he can allow the local authority to do with such a building, should the authority acquire it.
These are the two effects of placing a building on the list. It has not the effect which my hon. and gallant Friend assumed, that any permission has to be obtained from the local authority for anything whatever. It does not necessitate the owner's obtaining consent for anything, nor does it authorise anybody to refuse him consent for anything. It does, however, restrict him for two months after he has been given notice from doing any sort of repairs or alterations except certain emergency work. That is the sole disadvantage, if it is a disadvantage, under which he is placed; for two months he cannot do any major alterations. The object of those two months is to give the local planning authority an opportunity to consider whether it is a building about which it would like to make an Order under the 1932 Statute as amended. If it decides that it is a case for making such an Order, the owner may, of course, have all sorts of views about it which must be considered before the Order is confirmed. The actual notice under existing Regulations which the owner gets is 14 days. Under the new Regulations

which we propose to make the notice will be 28 days.
My hon. and gallant Friend may say, "Although this may be true, why not accept the Amendment and give notice at an earlier stage?" I think I can give an answer which my hon. and gallant Friend, with his usual fairness, will consider is a proper answer. If we gave an owner notice that the Minister proposed to include a building on the list, most owners would consider it improper to demolish the building the moment they got the notice. But would all? Suppose a multiple shop company had acquired a beautiful Queen Anne building in the main street of one of those towns which the late Gilbert Chesterton referred to as the crown jewels of England, for no other purpose than to pull it down and put up its multiple shop. It receives notice that the building is about to be placed on a list, after which things may happen rather rapidly, and the demolition may be prevented. At the moment, the multiple shop people can, with perfect legality, pull that house down. My hon. and gallant Friend might say—

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: May I remind the Minister that, under Section 17 of the 1932 Act, the Minister can make an Emergency Order?

Mr. Strauss: I was coming to that point. It is a technical matter, and I do not think that I should have omitted it if my hon. and gallant Friend had not reminded me. I certainly shall not omit it now, so let me deal with it at once. I assure him that he is wrong. The Emergency Order can be made by the Minister only if the local authority have made a Preservation Order, but the local authority in the case may not have the least intention of making a Preservation Order. The Minister would then have no power to make the Order to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred. The only other thing I think, which he could suggest, holding the views he does on preservation, is that we should give a man notice that we are going to put his house on the list, and should also put in some penal provision, stopping him thereafter from doing any work on it for a period; but that would only enable us to do very clumsily what can now be done quite simply. If we are going to attach penal provisions to his doing anything after we have given him notice, we might


just as well compile the list and then, if good reasons are shown that the house should not be on that list, amend the list. If we did the only thing which would make an Amendment such as my hon. and gallant Friend proposes safe, we should be in no better position that we are with the Clause as it stands.
I hope I have dealt with all the points that arise. I am confident that when my hon. and gallant Friend realises that the only effect adverse to the owner of placing his house on the list is to impose a delay of two months, during which he can do nothing but emergency work, and that when the time comes for making the Preservation Order, not only does he have every opportunity of objecting but that we are increasing the notice he is to have before the Order is confirmed, he may see his way to withdrawing his Amendment.

Amendment to Lords Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment, in page 48, line 39, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 40, leave out "subject to," and insert "either with or without."

2.35 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is an improvement. It is little more than a drafting Amendment. It does what the House always intended to achieve. Before the Minister makes a list, or approves an existing list, or approves it subject to modification, he is to consult with the proper bodies.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 41.—(Preservation of buildings of special architectural or historic interest.)

Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 12, at end insert:
(3) An Order giving or adding such a direction as aforesaid shall not be made by the authority or approved by the Minister unless the authority or the Minister, as the case may be, are or is satisfied that the alteration or extension of the building in the way prohibited would seriously affect the character of the building.
(4) Sub-section (2) of the said Section seventeen (under which an Order prohibiting

the demolition of a building is of no effect until approved by the Minister, and the Minister is required to consider representations of the owner of the building before approving such an Order) shall apply to an Order giving or adding such a direction as aforesaid.

2.36 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The proposed Sub-section (3) is designed, in the interests of the owner, to prevent this power being used in any vexatious way to check alterations in a building which really need not be checked at all. It meets the general desire to insert words into the Clause to make it clear that alterations or extensions of buildings for which the consent of the local authority, or on appeal of the Minister, may be required, and which are to be prohibited in the absence of consent, are only such as would seriously affect the character of the building. The object of the new Sub-section (4) is to make it quite clear that the obligation on the Minister to consider representations from the owner before an Order is made, which is expressly given by Section 17 of the Statute of 1932, will apply to an Order prohibiting the alteration or extension of a building. The effect of Sub-section (4) was, in fact, as a matter of legal construction, already in the Bill; but it is just as well that the owner's rights should be quite clear on the face of the Statute.

2.38 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I am pleased to say that I am in complete agreement with the argument of the Minister. The Lords Amendment is extremely wise and is drawn with great skill to secure that alterations for which notification has to be given are only such as would seriously affect the character of a building. Those are the exact words we want. I cannot imagine anyone in his right senses wanting to prevent anybody from putting a knob on his front door or making any other reasonable alteration. I gather that notification is to be given before the alterations which would seriously affect the character of a building can be carried out.

Mr. Strauss: Perhaps I might clarify the point. I do not want my hon. and gallant Friend to be under any misapprehension as to the Sub-sections that we are putting in to deal with the Preservation Orders that can be made. They do


not at all affect what I was discussing on the last occasion, what an owner of a listed building is prevented from doing for two months, when no Order has been made. That is in the Sub-section now numbered (3) which will become (5) and is not affected at all.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Am I in Order in asking my hon. Friend to say whether the owner of a listed building can carry out normal repairs and alterations which do not affect the character of the building, without giving notification? Does the Amendment which we are now discussing limit him to alterations that seriously affect the character?

2.41 p.m.

Mr. Wilmot: I wonder whether I may now ask the Minister a question which I asked him just now. This is a particularly important matter, and the House will be glad to have an assurance. What we have in mind is to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that this Clause, and the preservation one as now amended, give him power not only to list and preserve a particular building of artistic merit but to prevent its being spoiled by undesirable development around.
Let me take one particular case. Lewes High Street is a place for which my hon. Friend and myself have a great affection. In that street are a number of Queen Anne and early Georgian houses. They are all of that character, but between them there are innocuous early Victorian houses, mellowed by time. They live together in a very happy street. If one of those beautiful Queen Anne houses were listed and preserved, and although it could not be demolished or spoiled, if it had as neighbour instead of the existing old houses a multiple shop on the one side and the fake classical façade of a banking palace on the other side, the value of that house as an example of the period, and the value and beauty of the street, would be ruined, almost as much as if the house itself had been demolished. When I raised these points earlier, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary were very sympathetic and they promised to see whether they could, at a later stage, take powers to effect that sort of preservation.

2.43 p.m.

Captain Duncan: I would like to support what has just been said by the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Wilmot). There has been some correspondence in "The Times" recently about Well Walk, Hampstead, which is within the area of the London County Council, and which the hon. Member knows something about. There are a number of houses in that beautiful, old-world street in the middle of modern Hampstead, and it is in danger of being ruined as a whole by somebody who is seeking to promote the building of possibly unsuitable houses on the site of two or three empty houses. Will it be possible to stop that sort of thing, under this Bill?

2.44 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: Perhaps I might have the consent of the House to say a few words on the subject, and to clarify a few points. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This is very technical, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will look at Sub-section (1) of Clause 41 as it stands, apart from the Amendments, he will see that the Preservation Order may direct that, without the consent of the authority,
the building shall not, in any way prohibited by the Order, be altered or extended.
The proposed Sub-sections—and I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for the way in which he has welcomed them—limit what it is proper and possible for the Order to contain. It is the Order that we have to look at, to see what the owner can do and what he cannot do. I do not know whether I have made this point quite clear to all hon. Members, but that is the position. The effect of it is that it is only things that seriously affect the character of a building that properly fall within the Order.
Now let me turn to the point put by the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Wilmot) and other hon. Members. The hon. Member gave examples of streets of admirable houses and mentioned one of the best in the country, Lewes High Street, which is the subject of the last chapter of a fascinating book, which I hope everybody will get, by the Director of the National Buildings Record, called "Our Building Inheritance." The book should be in the hands of every local planning authority.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is that an advertisement?

Mr. Strauss: It is not an improper one, I hope. Let me say to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan) and the hon. Member for Kennington that there is a great deal for which we must rely on civilised action by local planning authorities. I would just remind them of the Sub-section I mentioned before, Clause 17 (8), in which it is stated:
In exercise of the powers conferred by this Section a local planning authority shall have regard to the desirability of preserving features of special architectural or historic interest.
Those words give direction and guidance to local authorities about what they are to do in this matter.

2.45 p.m.

Captain Duncan: Will the Minister read on "and the Minister?"

Mr. Strauss: I thought that, having drawn the attention of the House to this, I had probably reached the bounds of Order. My answer to the hon. Member is that these surroundings can be protected, but mainly by other planning powers, not preservation orders. The authorities can, however, acquire what I might call the immediate surroundings of these buildings. If Members will look at Sub-section (6) of the Clause we are dealing with, they will see that a local authority
may, with the consent of the Minister, acquire by agreement the building and any land comprising or contiguous or adjacent to it which appears to the authority and the Minister to be required for maintaining it or the amenities thereof,
and they can also acquire by compulsion in certain cases. I think the hon. Member will find the answer to his question in Sub-section (6) of Clause 41 which we are now considering.

Mr. Wilmot: I would take it from that that the lack of powers which prevented the Minister from doing something to save Berkeley Square has now been remedied?

Mr. Strauss: If the House would give me leave to reply in one sentence I would say that at that time the Minister had no powers where the local planning authority, in that case the L.C.C., gave consent. If my hon. Friend has a grievance against anybody, it is against the L.C.C.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 27, leave out "one month," and insert "two months."

2.47 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I am sorry that in earlier speeches I rather assumed that this Amendment which I am now seeking to make had already been made. When the matter was before the House on a previous occasion, the time limit was one month, and hon. Members in various quarters suggested that we might make it three months. On consideration of the facts it was thought that one month was too little, and three months was too much, and everybody agreed on two months.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I hope my hon. Friend will not make similar assumptions in other parts of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments in page 49, line 27, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 32, leave out from "or," to "so," in line 33, and insert:
health, or for the preservation of the building or of neighbouring property,

Mr. Strauss: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is not a drafting Amendment but is so obviously an improvement that I move it without further explanation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 49, line 39, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 50, line 34, at end, insert:
Works specified by the Minister as being required for properly maintaining a building as respects which an order under the said Section seventeen is in force and which is settled land within the meaning of the Settled Land Act, 1925, shall be added to the classes of work specified in Part II of the Third Schedule to that Act (which specifies improvements in or towards payment of which capital money may be applied, without any scheme being first submitted to the trustees of the settlement or the court, subject to provisions under which repayment of capital money applied may be required to be made out of income.

Mr. Strauss: This is an Amendment which I think will be welcomed by hon. Members, to deal with the case where one


of these houses is settled property within the meaning of the Settled Land Act. It was inserted in another place at the instance of legal Members with great legal knowledge of this subject. I think it improves the matter from the point of view of the owner, and should be added to the Clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 50, line 34, at end, insert new Clause C (Appeals in respect of design or external appearance of buildings).
Where, in accordance with paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section twelve of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, provision is made by a planning scheme for enabling the responsible authority to regulate the design or external appearance of buildings, any appeal under that Sub-section from a decision of the responsible authority shall, if the scheme so provides, lie to the Minister instead of to a court of summary jurisdiction or a special tribunal, and accordingly the said Sub-section shall have effect as if, after the words 'summary jurisdiction' there were inserted the words 'or to the Minister.'

2.50 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a small Amendment which deals with the tribunal to consider questions of external elevation and design where there is an operative scheme. Where there is an operative scheme under the Town and Country Planning Acts, 1932 and 1943, the appeal by an aggrieved owner, who wishes to do something to his building to which the planning authority objects, under the scheme can go either to a court of summary jurisdiction or a special tribunal. The present Amendment supplies a third alternative, which the scheme may provide, namely, the Minister. There are I think considerable advantages in that. A court of summary jurisdiction is, by general consent, not a suitable tribunal for these questions. There cannot be a single special tribunal, and a multiplicity of special tribunals would mean that it would become more difficult to work out a code or standard for the guidance of all concerned, and an appeal by agreement to the Minister is now a good deal more popular than that form of tribunal in many cases. The matter, of course, will not be quite outside the control of this House. This is only what a scheme may provide, and of course a scheme has to be laid

before this House. It is an obvious improvement to provide that the appeal may lie to the Minister who is already the person to whom the appeal lies at every stage until there is an operative scheme. He is the tribunal in all appeals on these questions under interim development control, which applies to almost the whole country, and it is proper, I think, that the questions which already come before him under interim development control should also come before him under an operative scheme.

2.53 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I cannot let this pass without saying this is another instance where appeals are being placed entirely in the hands of the Minister. If it was this Minister I would have every confidence, but suppose the Minister is one of my hon. Friends above the Gangway. I might have every confidence in him if I had not heard some of the remarks about what they wish to do so far as nationalisation of the land is concerned. I would only draw attention to the argument which has often been put forward as to whether one should always have to appeal to the head of the authority with whom one is at loggerheads. For that reason I do not like this Amendment, although I do not propose to divide upon it.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 42.—(Extension as respects war period of protection for existing buildings and uses.)

Lords Amendment: In page 51, line 29, at end, insert:
(d) by reason of the entry of the occupier of the building into whole-time service in the Armed Forces of the Crown or in the merchant navy or the mercantile marine or in a civil defence force within the meaning of the National Service Acts, 1939 to 1942, or, in the case of a woman, in any of the capacities mentioned in the First Schedule to the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, 1944; or
(e) by reason of such other circumstances as may he prescribed.

2.55 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Clause of which this is an Amendment deals with extension as respects the war period of the protection for the existing building and uses. There are, in Sub-section (3) of the


Bill as it left us, three categories of circumstances where the existing use is preserved throughout the period of the war. I need not detail them now. It has occurred to us that one very valid reason is the entry of the person concerned into His Majesty's Services or into some other force or employment of that character. Therefore we have included that category and have taken a general power to prescribe, which will enable us to deal with any other hard cases as they come along.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment to Page 51, line 37, agreed to.

CLAUSE 44.—(Provisions as to borrowing for purposes of this Part.)

Lords Amendment: In page 53, line 9, after "authority," insert "or a county council."

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is consequential on an Amendment which we have already accepted enabling county councils to participate in this work.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment to page 53, line 9, agreed to.

CLAUSE 48.—(Provisions as to local inquiries.)

Lords Amendment: In page 54, line 38, at end, insert new Clause D (Provisions as to ecclesiastical property).
(1) Where the fee simple in any ecclesiastical property is in abeyance it shall be treated for the purposes of a compulsory purchase of the property authorised under this Part of this Act as being vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and any notice to treat shall be served, or be deemed to have been served, accordingly.
(2) Where under this Act any notice other than a notice to treat, is required to be served on an owner of land, and the land is ecclesiastical property, a like notice shall be served on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
(3) In this Act the expression 'ecclesiastical property' means land belonging to any ecclesiastical benefice or being or forming part of a church subject to the jurisdiction of the bishop of any diocese or the site of such a church, or being or forming part of a burial ground subject to such jurisdiction.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is designed to remove uncertainties and difficulties as to the disposal of church property such as glebe land, consecrated churches and churchyards. We have mentioned the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as the one statutory central church authority to assume all the necessary obligations.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment to page 55, line 3, agreed to.

CLAUSE 50.—(Service of notices.)

Lords Amendment: In page 55, line 34, leave out paragraphs (f) and (g), and insert:
Provided that a notice or other document that is required or authorised to be served on or given to a person as having an interest in, or being an occupier of, any premises shall be deemed to be duly served on that person,—

(i) where he is a person having an interest and his name cannot be ascertained after reasonable inquiry, or where he is an occupier, if it is addressed to him by the description of 'the owner' or 'the occupier' as the case may be, of the premises (describing them) and delivered, left or sent as mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of this Section;
(ii) where he is a person having an interest and his address cannot be ascertained after reasonable inquiry, or where he is an occupier, if the notice or other document (addressed to him either by name or in accordance with paragraph (i) of this proviso, and marked in such manner as may be prescribed for securing that it shall be plainly identifiable as a communication of importance) is sent in a prepaid registered letter to those premises and is not returned to the authority sending it, or is delivered to some person on those premises, or is affixed conspicuously to some object on those premises;

and where a notice or other document is required to be served on or given to all persons having interest in, or being occupiers of, premises comprised in any land, and any of that land appears to the authority required to serve or give the notice or other document to be unoccupied, it shall be deemed to he duly served on all persons having interests in, and of all occupiers (if any) of, premises comprised in the land so appearing to the authority (other than an owner who in accordance with the provisions of this Act in that behalf has furnished the authority with an address for service of the notice on him) if it is addressed to 'the owners and any occupiers' of the land so appearing (describing it) and marked as aforesaid and is affixed conspicuously to some object on that land

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."


This is a purely drafting and machinery Amendment, a redrafting of some proposals already before us regarding notice, picking up several suggestions made by hon. Members in the course of the Debate.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 51.—(Definition of "local planning authority"; and joint committees.)

Lords Amendment to page 56, line 9, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 12, at end, insert:
(2) Sub-section (2) of Section two of the said Act (which empowers a county district council to relinquish any of its powers and duties under that Act to the county council) shall apply as if the references therein to the powers and duties of a county district council under that Act included references to their powers and duties under Section one of this Act, and—

(a) in relation to an application under the said Section one made by a county council, references in that Section to a local planning authority and to the area of a local planning authority shall be construed respectively as references to the county council and to the area of the local planning authority by whom the power of making the application has been relinquished to the county council;
(b) the reference in paragraph (b) of Subsection (1) of Section two of this Act to an Order made on the application of the local planning authority therein referred to shall include a reference to an Order made on the application of a county council to whom that authority has relinquished the power of making the application; and
(c) the references in Sub-section (5) of Section two of this Act to the authority on whose application an Order was made shall, where the Order was made on the application of a county council, be construed as a reference to the local planning authority by whom the power of making the application was relinquished to the county council."

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This gives power for county district councils to relinquish their power under this Bill to county councils. They already do it under general planning laws, and they should under this Measure.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 57, line 13, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 15, at end, insert new Clause E (Provisions as to London).

(1) Where an order has been made, on an application under Sub-section (1) of Section 1 of this Act, as respects land in a metropolitan borough, or authorisation of the compulsory purchase of any such land has been given under any of the provisions of this Part of this Act, the Minister may, if an application in that behalf is made to him by the London County Council, by order direct that notwithstanding anything in Sub-section (1) of the last preceding Section, the council of that metropolitan borough shall, as respects all or any of the land, as may be specified in the application, be the local planning authority for the purposes of such of the provisions of this Part of this Act as may be so specified, and that the said provisions shall apply as if the application under Sub-section (1) of Section 1 of this Act had been made by the council of the metropolitan borough, or the authorisation had been given to that council, as the case may be.
An order under this Sub-section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order of the Minister made in accordance with an application in that behalf by the London County Council.
(2) The Common Council of the City of London—

(a) may with the consent of the Minister certify as respects any land which they have acquired for the purposes of this Part of this Act and which is for the time being held by them for those purposes that the land will not, as from the giving of the certificate, be so held;
(b) may with the consent of the Minister certify as respect any land for the time being held by them, not being land to which Sub-section (2) of Section fourteen of this Act applies, that the land is appropriated for the purposes of this Part of this Act:
(c) may with the consent of the Minister revoke a certificate in force under this Sub-section as respects any land for the time being held by them;

and references in this Part of this Act to land acquired or appropriated by a local planning authority for the purposes of this Part of this Act shall be construed, in the case of the said Council, as references to land acquired by them for the said purposes as respects which no certificate under paragraph (a) of this Subsection is in force, or land as respects which a certificate under paragraph (b) of this Subsection is in force, or land appropriated for the said purposes in accordance with Sub-section (2) of Section fourteen of this Act.
The consent of the Minister for the purposes of this Sub-section may be given either as respects a particular certificate or as respects certificates relating to land of any class, and either subject to or free from any conditions or limitations.
(3) The powers of disposal conferred on the Common Council of the City of London by Section nineteen of this Act shall be exercisable, as respects land to which they apply, to the exclusion of any other power of disposal which apart from this Sub-section would be exercisable by the said Council.

2.59 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The purpose of the Amendment is to enable the Metropolitan Boroughs to participate in the huge task of reconstruction which will fall upon London. The L.C.C. remains the planning authority for the whole of its area, but it can, by agreement with the Metropolitan Boroughs, in fact, get them to exercise some of the powers and do some of the work. This Amendment is the result of negotiations that have taken place between the L.C.C. and the Metropolitan Boroughs, discussions which, I am glad to say, were conducted in a spirit of cordiality and resulted in agreement.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 59, line 37, agreed to.

CLAUSE 53.—(Supplement to compensation in case of owner-occupier.)

Lords Amendment: In page 60, line 16, at end, insert:
,so however that a person shall not be treated under this paragraph as in occupation of a building or property by virtue of his occupying a part thereof if he occupies it wholly or mainly in connection with the management, supervision or control of the building or property as a whole.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment"
The purpose of the Amendment is to exclude from the category of owner-occupiers a person who, perhaps, owns a block of offices or flats and has one room in that block which he uses for management purposes. This is designed to make that clear.

3.1 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I sincerely hope the House will not agree to any such proposal. I hope we have open minds on these Amendments. This is a very serious point. Woolworths, the store which provides things for large numbers of people, or the Co-operative Societies, or Marks and Spencers or anybody else, can occupy the ground floor of their premises and let off all the other floors and still be regarded as owner-occupiers for the purposes of compensation. I hope my right hon. Friend will correct me if

I am wrong, but I am told that that is so. I am also told that if the ground floor is a shop with a considerable number of flats over it they are still regarded as owner-occupiers. Now my right hon. Friend comes along and says that the investor in bricks and mortar must be treated in a different way, and if the shop is an estate office, and the flats above are let, then the owner is not going to be regarded as an owner-occupier. This is a very complicated Bill and I am trying to follow all the arguments. I have read the Debate on this particular point in the other place, which was not very enlightening, and I would ask my right hon. Friend to say that there is not a discrimination in this Lords Amendment against the use of the ground floor premises because they are being used as an estate office, or because some small portion of the building is used as an estate office. If that is not so, I hope the House will not accept this Amendment.

3.3 p.m.

Lieut. - Commander Joynson - Hicks: I support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) in his argument, and I want to introduce the Parliamentary widow. We have not heard of her for a long time in connection with this Bill, as I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree. Does not this Amendment apply equally well to the individual, whether a widow or not, who owns one house, lives in the top half of it and lets the bottom half? She is resident there
wholly or mainly in connection with the management, supervision or control of the building or property as a whole.
It is true that the part in which she lives is her home, but the other part is equally the home of the person who lives there. I should like the assurance that this Amendment does not go beyond the very strict limits for which it is intended.

3.5 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I am very anxious to meet the points that are causing my hon. Friends anxiety but I should like to be sure that I have them clearly in mind and am not merely shadow fighting with something which is not troubling them. I understand the point of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) is, in the main, concerned with people like Messrs.


Woolworth, or Montague Burton, whose main occupation is the shop and who let off the office premises above for some purpose or another. I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to look at the words of the Clause. They say:
… a person shall not be treated under this paragraph as in occupation of a building or property by virtue of his occupying a part thereof if he occupied it wholly or mainly in connection with the management, supervision or control of the building or property as a whole.
No one can say, and no court that I have ever had anything to do with could, I imagine, say that Messrs. Woolworth or Montague Burton occupied their premises wholly in connection with the management and control of their business. Their occupation would be for the purpose of the shop. Similarly, if I take the example of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks) of the widow who owns two houses, lives in one and has tenants in the other—

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: She has only one house. She lives in the top half and lets the bottom half.

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry. She lives in one half and lets the other, whether it be a lock-up shop, or rooms, or something of that sort.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: May I suggest that what I was saying was, Is it fair that Woolworths should qualify for the supplementary compensation whereas, if the ground floor office happened to be an estate office, they could not do so?

The Solicitor-General: If I might return for one moment to the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith there seems to be all the difference in the world to me between Woolworths, who have a big shop and pay big rates in order to run their business, and somebody who reserves in a block of flats a little portion in which he can have an office. Where there is a big building and one firm—whose main source of income is the rents from that office building—run a little estate agency in that building, they seem to be in a totally different field from Woolworths' and so I must really, with great respect, differ from my hon. and gallant Friend over that.
With regard to the widow who occupies one half of the building and lets the other half, again I should say that no-one in the world could suggest that she occupies her own dwelling house "wholly or mainly in connection with the management, supervision or control" of the other dwelling house. The possibility of driving a coach and horses through this does not frighten me. I doubt whether my hon. and gallant Friend, with all his skill, could drive a coach or even a pony cart through this one.

3.10 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: With the permission of the House, may I ask my hon. and learned Friend whether the same consideration applies to an estate agency which deals with other estate work? I want to see whether the Government are discriminating against estate agencies. If the agents dealt with work over a comprehensive area, apart from that block of flats, I presume they would be regarded as owner-occupiers.

The Solicitor-General: If the House will give me leave to answer, I would reply that in that case they would not occupy it
wholly or mainly in connection with the management, supervision or control of the building";
and, therefore, they would not come within the scope of this Clause.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 60, line 19, at end, insert:
so however that a person shall not be treated under this paragraph as in occupation of a building or property by virtue of any occupation thereof by a person employed by him as caretaker of that building or property.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I think that the Amendment is self-explanatory.

3.12 p.m.

Mr. Dermot Campbell: I am not very happy about this Amendment. I think it shows every evidence of not having been properly thought out. The Bill lays down that certain classes of property owners should be paid compensation at a certain rate, and another class at a higher rate. This Amendment seeks to ensure that certain occupiers shall not winkle them-


selves out of one class into another. To that extent it is desirable. But I submit that it will have an effect greater than that which is desired. In spreading the net to include those hypothetical winklers, the Amendment includes a number of other perfectly reputable persons, who vacate their premises temporarily, for perfectly legitimate reasons, in the course of their business. This legislation has been so rushed through that it was only this morning that I secured a copy of these Amendments—when I went to the Vote Office before, they were not available. Consequently, I do not know how to get round this difficulty. But I am sure my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench should be able to think of a way out. Take the case of a small hotel at a seaside resort. That hotel is open only during the season. When the season is over the hotel closes and the management put in a caretaker. If the local authority wish to secure possession of that hotel for development, all they have to do is to wait until the season is over, and then say "Snap,' and the property is theirs at a lower figure. My right hon. Friend shakes his head, but I am convinced that I am right.

3.14 p.m.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: I would like to support my hon. Friend. In the time at my disposal I have not been able to clear my mind of the fear that what he says may be true. I would like the Minister to give a full explanation, because in that large class of cases, where there are boarding-houses Which are shut up for six months or more in winter-time, the proprietors should be protected.

3.15 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: The important thing is to see why the caretaker is there. The caretaker could be there for either of two purposes: to let the premises, in which case the owner is not the occupier, or to look after the premises for the owner, in which case they should be treated as being owner-occupied. I urge my right hon. Friend to look into that matter.

3.16 p.m.

Captain Duncan: I am not very happy about this either. What does this occupation really mean? I quite understand the case of an owner who, wanting to dispose of his property, takes the furniture out, and leaves a caretaker in the basement to look after the place and show prospective purchasers around. In that

case there may be an argument for the words in the Amendment. But the seaside hotel proprietor leaves the furniture there, with a caretaker, with the object of opening up when the season arrives. The rates are still being paid if the furniture is in the house. If "in occupation" means in rate-paying occupation, I think the Clause is all right; otherwise it wants looking into again.

3.17 p.m.

Mr. Loftus: I am a little disturbed about the remarks which have been made. Reference has been made to seasonal caretakers at boarding-houses, and so on, but there are other cases. For instance, on the Norfolk Broads there are many establishments, apart from boarding-houses and hotels, catering for visitors during the summer months, which for a great part of the year are left in the charge of a caretaker. I would like to see their position safeguarded.

3.18 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: I cannot see how there can be any certainty as to the meaning of this Clause. My right hon. and learned Friend will, I am sure, deal with the point in his lucid and learned way, but the expression "occupation," to which attention has been called, and also the expression "caretaker," struck me as being exceedingly difficult of interpretation, and liable to lead to very great hardship, particularly on the South coast and elsewhere, where so much damage has taken place, among people who are in occupation as caretakers in some form or another, even, it may be, in their own homes.

3.19 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I very much appreciate that all my hon. Friends desire clarity in this matter. Therefore, I would ask them to spare one moment to look at the portion of the Bill to which this Amendment will apply. It is paragraph (c) of Sub-section (6) of Clause 53, which says:
a person shall be treated as in occupation of a building or property if it is in the occupation of a person in his employment for the purposes of that employment.
That is what we start with. Suppose a farmer has a cottage in the occupation of one of the workers on the farm, in his employment; he is in occupation of that cottage, through his employee. That we all approve of, and want to maintain.


We did not want that provision to be abused, so we inserted these words:
so however that a person shall not be treated under this paragraph—
that is, the paragraph which I have read—
as in occupation of a building or property by virtue of any occupation thereof by a person employed by him as caretaker of that building or property
The word "occupation" has, in this connection, the sense which it must bear in the context which I have already read out. If we take the example given by one hon. Member, who referred to the seaside hotel which puts in a caretaker for a portion of the year, and I think the hon. Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan) had in mind the same example, there would be no doubt at all, in my view, that occupation would be by the hotel proprietor or the hotel company, and I cannot see any danger of anyone saying that because, for the winter months, occupation was by a caretaker, for that reason the person was not an owner-occupier. The answer to that would be: "I occupy this building to the full, proper, reasonable, economic extent for which it can be occupied for the purpose of running a seaside hotel." My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill) was, I think, asking only for a fuller explanation, and I do not think he had in mind any specific point in addition to that with which I have tried to deal.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) seemed to me, if I may say so, to put his finger right on the point. Why is the caretaker there? That is the real test in the matter, and that is the test which is laid down in the Act when it is read, as I have endeavoured to point out to the House, with the context in which it is introduced. Although I fully appreciate that my hon. Friends are anxious that there should be no hardship in these cases, equally, I and my hon. Friends are the last people who would desire anyone with no real occupation to get a benefit because of the position of a caretaker. Therefore, if I may sum it up, we have protected the person who really occupies by a servant, like a farmer and the worker in his cottage, we have protected the person who is in seasonal, but none the less real, occupation as an hotel keeper, and the

only person we have not protected, but deliberately refrain from protecting, is, in the clear words of the Clause,
the person whose only occupation is by virtue of any occupation thereof by a person employed by him as caretaker of that building or property.
I say to my hon. Friend who have doubts about the drafting of the Clause that it will protect the caretaker as occupier of his own premises, as, in some cases, he is given a little flat, but it would not let him in as caretaker of the whole premises because he has that little flat. I hope I have made the matter clear.

3.23 p.m.

Mr. Bowles: I am sure we have never seen so much gloom spread amongst the Conservative Party as we have witnessed recently, and all this seems to arise from their friends in another place, whose ability to say what they mean and ability to draft what they mean seems to be the cause of all this. Perhaps the Solicitor-General would be good enough to tell them, and this House, whether a caretaker put in by a Noble Lord in his Park Lane house when he goes to the Riviera is a caretaker in occupation?

3.24 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sorry that the hon. Member opposite should have thought it necessary to bring in matters of that sort, appropriate only to those who seek to gain party capital. I should have thought that both sides of the House were in entire agreement with the objects which it is intended to achieve, that is to say, to stop someone getting the 30 per cent increase by a bogus trick. The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) raised this point, and I, personally, am very glad that he did so, but I must confess that I feel some doubt still, in spite of what the Solicitor-General has said, whether the drafting of this Clause does not go beyond our common objects and might result in some injustices to people whom no one wants to injure by discriminating against them in comparison with other people. Having heard the Solicitor-General and his objections, it seems to me a matter of doubt whether this Clause and the Amendment achieve the agreed objective. My right hon. and learned Friend says it all depends on the purpose of the caretaking. There is nothing in this Amendment to distinguish


between different kinds of caretaker. What it says is:
That a person shall not be treated … as in occupation of a building or property by virtue of any occupation thereof by a person employed by him as caretaker of that building or property.
It seems to me that those words are quite wide enough to cover the case of the South coast hotel, so as to be able to say that an hotel or boarding house for a seasonal period is in occupation by a person employed by the owner as a caretaker and so does not come within this Clause. I would like to ask the Minister to consider this matter further. I think both sides of the House are agreed upon the objective, but I think the Amendment goes a little beyond what is required. Although our opportunities of amending this Amendment are limited to-day by considerations of what might happen if we did, and although, in respect to what the hon. Member for Peckham said, I am not one of those who do not wish to see the Bill on the Statute Book, if the Minister will consider this wording further, and, if necesary, bring in a one-Clause Amending Bill in the light of that reconsideration, I should welcome it. I am not satisfied with it as it stands.

3.27 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I think the House is very much indebted to the Solicitor-General for his explanation of the Clause, which certainly has been perfectly clear and satisfactory, although some hon. Members, like the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), who, if I may respectfully say so, is usually very clearheaded, have not quite appreciated the explanation that has been given.
After all, when a person is an owner-occupier of premises, it must be a question of fact for the aribitrator to decide, and it is impossible to legislate for every conceivable type of case. I have not the slightest doubt that, if a boarding-house keeper who only occupies for six months of the year claims to be an owner-occupier, the arbitrator, if in his full senses, would accept the fact that she was an owner-occupier. I cannot see that there can be any doubt about it, whether she put a caretaker in or not. Supposing this woman was a boarding-house proprietor who occupied the premises for six months and then left, but did not put in a caretaker. There could be no question at the end that she was the occupier of

the premises. Surely, she does not get into a worse position merely because she puts in a caretaker to look after the premises? No one interpreting this Bill could possibly suggest that, because there is a caretaker looking after the premises, she is worse off and ceases to be an owner-occupier. I think that what those hon. Members who do not understand the wording of the Amendment have failed to appreciate is that, as the Solicitor-General has said, these words are tacked on to an existing Clause—Clause 53, Sub-section (6) (c) —

Mr. Loftus: There is just one phrase in that Sub-section which seems to narrow it very much—" for the purpose of that employment." Would not that narrow the definition?

Mr. Silkin: The purpose of this Subsection is to enlarge the rights of persons who claim to be owner-occupiers. But for this Sub-section a person would be an owner-occupier if he employed somebody else. This enlarges the opportunities for people to treat as owner-occupiers, but the Amendment is designed to see that the enlargement does not go too far. I think it is clear and I hope that we can now accept it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 60, line 32, at end, insert:
(e) no regard shall be had to occupation or intended occupation of a budding or property entered into, or intended to be entered into, with a view to rendering a sum payable under this Section in a case in which it would not otherwise have been payable.

3.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment deals with a paragraph which my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) wanted to be inserted to meet the point he raised on the Report Stage, applying it to the bona fide owner-occupier. My hon. Friend suggested doing that by means of a test, and I put forward for consideration the contrary suggestion of making the test bona fide occupation in order to get increased compensation, and on that my hon. Friend let the matter go. This new paragraph is to meet that point and it is a common form provision in its application and has the result of limiting it to owner-occupiers in the way we suggest.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 54.—(Supplement to compensation in case of improvements.)

Lords Amendment: In page 60, line 42, leave out from "improved" to "by," in line 44.

3.31 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
We had a discussion in this House on this matter and this Amendment gives effect to the general sense of that discussion. The Clause deals with the supplement of compensation in the case of improvement. It formerly contained words limiting the improvements which qualified for the supplement to include an interest in land which
has been improved in the interests of the war effort or under instructions from, or with the licence or permission of, a Government Department.
There was a good deal of question as to why a man who made a pigsty without asking any Government Department for permission should be denied the supplement, whereas someone who had gone to the county war agricultural committtee and done precisely the same job and made exactly the same improvement should receive it. We tried to devise words to prevent any improper improvements getting into this Clause, but did not succeed. On reflection, the control of expenditure on these matters has been so checked during the war that it is very likely that no proper improvements have been made to make us search for a phrase which probably does not exist.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 61, line 8, leave out from the first "any" to "increased."

3.33 P.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Clause 54 directed the arbitrator, in considering whether to award a supplement in respect of improvements, to have regard, among other things, to any recovery of any of the cost thereafter by reason of increased returns or increased prices in respect of work done on improved land. The purpose of that was to secure that the owner who had put himself into a position to recover

the whole or part of the capital cost of improvements out of the proceeds of the use of the improvements by charging prices which included the limits aimed at, and getting that return in addition to the income return, should not qualify for a supplement. It was pointed out in our discussion on the matter that the existing wording did not sufficiently differentiate between the replacement of capital and reasonable returns. Therefore, we put forward the amended wording in order to meet the point.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 83, line 34, agreed to. [Several with Special Entries.]

Lords Amendment: After the Seventh Schedule, insert new Schedule.

EIGHTH SCHEDULE

(Ascertainment of Compensation for purchase of land valued under the War Damage Act, 1943.)

Certified after-damage value of land to be taken in certain circumstances as its value for compensation or compulsory purchase.
1.—(1) Where the subject of a compulsory purchase, the compensation for which is by virtue of Section fifty-two of this. Act to be assessed subject to the rule set out in Subsection (1) of that Section, is or comprises an interest in the whole of the land in a hereditament within the meaning of the War Damage Act, 1943, the value of which is required by that Act to be ascertained by reference to its state after war damage and to an assumed sale thereof, the value of the said land for the purposes of the ascertainment of the compensation for the purchase shall be taken to be such amount as may be certified by the War Damage Commission to be the value of the hereditament as ascertained as aforesaid (in this Schedule referred to as the 'certified after-damage value' of that land), subject however to the two next succeeding sub-paragraphs.
(2) The preceding sub-paragraph shall not have effect if between the occurrence of the war damage and the time when the notice to treat is served the land in the hereditament has been brought into a state such as to make it capable of being as beneficially used while remaining in that state as it was immediately before the occurrence of the war damage.
(3) If the land in the hereditament has not been brought into such a state as aforesaid, but there is any material difference either—

(a) between the state of the land in the hereditament after damage by reference to which the value thereof falls to be ascertained under the War Damage Act, 1943, and its state at the time when the notice to treat is served; or


(b) between the incumbrances, if any, to which the said land was subject immediately after the occurrence of the war damage and the incumbrances, if any, to which it is subject at the time when the notice to treat is served, being incumbrances of a kind required by the said Act to be taken into account in ascertaining the value of the hereditament,

the value of the said land for the purposes of the ascertainment of the compensation for the purchase shall be taken to be the certified after-damage value thereof adjusted by adding, or by subtracting, as the case may require, the amount by which the value of the hereditament as required to be ascertained under the said Act would have been greater or less if that value had fallen to be ascertained by reference to the state of the hereditament at the time when the notice to treat is served and if it had been subject immediately after the occurrence of the war damage to all incumbrances of any such kind as aforesaid to which it is subject at the time when the notice to treat is served and to no other incumbrances of any such kind.
(4) Where this paragraph has effect as respects a purchase the subject of which comprises, but does not consist solely of, the interest in question in the land in the hereditament, the compensation for the purchase shall be ascertained, and all statutory provisions relating to the ascertainment thereof or to the carrying out of the purchase or to matters connected therewith shall have effect, subject to any agreement between the purchasing authority and other parties concerned, as if the interest in question in that land had been purchased separately and separate notices to treat had been served accordingly, and had been served simultaneously.

Compensation for compulsory purchase of several interests in land to be ascertained in certain circumstances by apportionment of certified after-damage value thereof.
2.—(1) Where by virtue of paragraph 1 of this Schedule the value of the land comprised in a hereditament is to be taken for the purposes of the ascertainment of compensation to be its certified after-damage value (or that value as adjusted), and notices to treat have been served in respect of two or more interests in the whole of that land on the same date or within such period as may be fixed as respects that land under rules, the compensation to be paid for the purchase of each of those interests shall be ascertained in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) The amount representing the value of each of those interests as it would have fallen to be ascertained if this paragraph had not had effect in relation thereto shall be agreed, assessed or determined in accordance with the provisions of sub-paragraphs (3) to (7) of this paragraph, and the compensation to be paid for the purchase of each interest shall be the proportion of the certified after-damage value of the land, or of that value as adjusted, as the case may be, which the amount agreed, assessed or determined in respect of that interest bears to the aggregate of the amounts

agreed, assessed or determined in repect of the several interests:
Provided that if the interests in question do not include all interests subsisting in the land at the date or at the expiration of the period aforesaid, an amount representing the value of any excluded interest, as it would have fallen to be ascertained if that interest had been purchased and this paragraph had not in effect in relation thereto, shall be agreed, assessed or determined in accordance with the said provisions and added to the said aggregate.
(3) If the values of the several interests in question and of any excluded interest are not otherwise agreed, the claimant in respect of each of the interests in question, and the purchasing authority as respects any excluded interest, shall cause an estimate of the value of that interest to be made and transmitted to an officer of the Valuation Office appointed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and that office shall, after considering the estimates, take steps in accordance with rules for securing if possible agreement between the claimants, and, if there is any excluded interest, the purchasing authority, as to the value of each interest.
(4) In default of agreement as to the value of any interest the said officer shall make an assessment of the value of that interest.
(5) The costs of the employment by a claimant of a person skilled in valuation to advise or act for him for the purposes of either of the two last preceding sub-paragraphs on a purchase by a local or public authority within the meaning of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, shall be paid by the authority.
(6) If any claimant, or, if there is any excluded interest, the purchasing authority is aggrieved by an assessment made by the said officer, the claimant or the authority may in accordance with rules require the value of the interest dealt with by the assessment to be determined by one of the panel of arbitrators appointed under Section one of the said Act of 1919
(7) If in respect of any of the interests in question no claim is duly made within the time prescribed by rules, an independent person skilled in valuation may be appointed in accordance with rules to act for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (3) to (6) of this paragraph in respect of that interest, and those sub-paragraphs shall have effect as if all things done thereunder by the person so appointed had been duly authorised, by all persons concerned in respect of the interest in question, to be done by that person as agent for them.
(8) Where the last preceding sub-paragraph has bad effect as respects any interest and the value thereof has been agreed or assessed under sub-paragraph (3) or (4) of this paragraph, if any person who would have been entitled but for this paragraph to have any question of disputed compensation in relation to that interest referred to arbitration in accordance with the said Act of 1919 shows in accordance with rules that the fact that no claim was made as aforesaid was not attributable to any default on his part, he may in accordance with rules require


the value of that interest to be determined by one of the panel of arbitrators appointed under Section one of the said Act of 1919, and if the compensation on the basis of the value of the interest as so determined is greater or less than the compensation on the basis of the value thereof as agreed or assessed as aforesaid, the difference shall be recoverable by the person entitled to the compensation from the purchasing authority or by the authority from him, as the case may be.
(9) The costs of any arbitration under sub-paragraph (6) or (8) of this paragraph, including any fees charges and expenses of the arbitration or award, shall be in the discretion of the official arbitrator, who may direct to and by whom and in what manner those costs or any part thereof shall be paid, and the official arbitrator may in any case disallow the costs of counsel.
(10) The amount of any costs that an authority are liable to pay by virtue of sub-paragraph (5) of this paragraph, or of any arbitration under sub-paragraph (6) or (8) thereof, shall be determined by reference to scales to be prescribed by the Treasury, and in case of difference as to the amount of any such costs they shall, if payable under sub-paragraph (5) of this paragraph, be taxed in such manner as the Treasury may direct, or, if payable under direction of an official arbitrator, be taxed by him or in such manner as he may direct.

Rules for giving effect to preceding provisions of this Schedule

3. Provision may be made by rules made by the Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the Reference Committee referred to in the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, for giving effect to the provisions of the two preceding paragraphs, for prescribing anything thereby required to be determined by rules, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by this paragraph—

(a) for the determination of any question whether land has been brought into a state such as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 of this Schedule, of any question whether there is any such material difference as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph, and, in a case in which there is any such difference, how the certified after-damage value ought to be adjusted;
(b) for regulating the proceedings for the ascertainment of compensation, where the value of any land for the purposes of the ascertainment thereof is to be taken to be the certified after-damage value of the land (or that value as adjusted), so as to secure that the requisite certificate and particulars of any requisite adjustment may be rendered available for those purposes;
(c) for fixing the period referred to in subparagraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule within which, where a notice to treat has been served as respects an interest in the whole of the land in a hereditament, such a notice in respect of any other interest therein must be or have been served in order to render the provisions of that paragraph applicable to the ascertainment of the compensation to be paid for the purchase of

those interests, and for securing, so far as may be practicable, that all such notices intended to be given as respects interests in the whole of the land in a hereditament shall be given within the period fixed;
(d) for specifying limits of time within which things required or authorised by paragraph 2 of this Schedule must be done, with or without power to persons designated by the rules to extend to such limits;

and references in paragraph 2 of this Schedule to rules shall be construed as references to rules made under this paragraph."

3.44 P.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House will no doubt expect a short explanation of this new Schedule. Its purpose is to give effect to quite simple principles in regard to the compulsory purchase of "blitzed" properties as they stand after war damage. The principle of paragraph 1 is to accept the value of a "blitzed" property formed by the War Damage Commission—or on appeal from them, by a reference under Section 32 of the War Damage Act—for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of a value payment, as conclusive for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of compensation for compulsory purchase of interests in the same property. Our object is, first, to avoid two separate valuations of the same property, both related to a March, 1939,, standard. That will save a substantial amount of valuation at a time, when, as every one appreciates, there will be very high demands on our valuation staff. Our second object is to ensure that an owner who receives a war damage value payment fixed on the basis that his property as it stands after the damage has a certain value, shall not have that property compulsorily purchased for compensation fixed on the basis that it has any greater or less value. That again, we suggest, is correct on the grounds of equity and finance.
With regard to paragraph 2, the principle is to provide a means of fixing the compensation for several interests in a single "blitzed" property by negotiation instead of by independent valuation of each interest, Under the present compensation law, notice to treat has to be given as to an interest, not as to a property, and if there are say, three interests—freehold, lease and sub-lease—there must be three notices to treat and three separate sets


of compensation proceedings, although the relevant valuation factors are largely the same. We contemplate that agreement will be arranged, and that the district valuer will act as intermediary to secure that agreement. We contemplate that the district valuer will find it possible to call the owners of the various interests together and discuss with them the appropriate apportionment and settle the exact amount due to each. We hope that compulsion will be unnecessary, except in very few cases, but of course we always have to provide in these circumstances for what we hope is the rare case where compulsion will be necessary. The House will see that paragraph 3 is a machinery provision.
That is the general scheme. I shall not go through it in detail, but the general points which the House will see in paragraph 1 are these: Sub-section (1) confines it to the whole of the blitzed land. Sub-section (2) excludes cases in which the damage has been, or could have been made good. Sub-section (3) modifies the operation in cases where the premises have been partly dealt with, or there are changes in the legal proceedings.
With regard to the question of the valuation, again I do not propose to go into it in detail, unless anyone desires information on any point. I will rapidly run through the procedure under paragraph (2) in the same way. I hope it will commend itself to the House. First, the owner submits his claim. He is allowed the cost of a valuer which, I think the House will agree, is fair. If it is not agreed, the district valuer tries to bring the parties together. If there is no settlement, he makes his assessment, and that is binding on the parties unless there is an application to an official arbitrator, in which case it is binding where the official arbitrator issues the final assessment. Any costs of a reference to the official arbitrator are in his discretion. The value of the interests so ascertained are then made the basis of an apportionment of the value of whole property, and the House will see that Sub-sections (7) and (8) deal with a case in which the owner of some purchased interest cannot be brought within the negotiation machinery because he makes no claim. Therefore, we have to have a provision for assigning a value to his interest in order to make the appointment complete, and we provide for a valuer being given to him. I have tried to put the explanation as shortly and as

simply as I can. I hope the House will agree that this procedure will act expeditiously and fairly, and I hope that they will allow the new Schedule.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Bowles: There is one point about which I would like some information from the Minister. If one walks about the West End of London one sees large areas completely flat, such as in Bond Street, and notice boards with regard to postwar development which ask people to apply to Messrs. Hillier, Parker, May & Rowden, or some other firm of surveyors or trustees. I suppose that in some of these cases value payments have aleady been agreed by the War Damage Commission—the place I have in mind at the moment is at the corner of Bruton Street and Bond Street—and if the surveyor or estate agent sells it at any value above that and then, later, the appropriate planning authority comes along and desires to widen the street, can we have an assurance that, whatever has taken place privately in the form of post-war development by the purchasers of that land, the ratepayers of the country as a whole will not be called upon to pay for any increased value above the value payment which has been agreed between the old owners and the War Damage Commission?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The purpose of the Schedule is that in every case of compulsory acquisition during the period for which it applies, if there has been a valuation by the War Damage Commission that is accepted as the price at which the property has changed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — LONG-SERVICE SOLDIERS (WIDOWS' PENSIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Drewe.]

3.53 p.m.

Captain Duncan: A few months ago I caused some laughter in the House by giving notice that I was dissatisfied with the answer to a Question put by me to the Secretary of State for War before he actually gave the answer. The reason for that was that I had had considerable correspondence with the Minister of Pensions and the


Secretary of State for War regarding the case of S.S.Q.M.S. Master Baker Williams, R.A.S.C., who had died after 24½ years' service, and whose widow was given no war pension. The facts of the case are, briefly, as follow. S.S.Q.M.S. Williams joined the Army in 1919 and served in Gibraltar for three years, Shanghai for two years, Malta for three years and with the B.E.F. in France. On his way back from France, in a hurry, he was bombed while in the "Lancastria" and was in the water for some time with a wound which was affected by oil on the water.
He recovered, and some time after that, in 1943, he was coming home on leave from one of the South coast areas when he suddenly fell ill in the train. He was removed from the train at Seven-oaks, in a state of coma, and was taken to hospital, where he died. According to the medical evidence he died from cerebral haemorrhage. His widow applied for a pension from the Ministry of Pensions, which was refused. She appealed to the appeal tribunal, which decided that her husband's death was not due to, or hastened by, a wound, injury or disease attributable to war service, nor was it due to, or hastened by, any aggravation of a wound through war service.
The next thing that happened was that the widow applied to me, and I wrote to the Minister of Pensions. He replied—and I have no quarrel with him—that in view of the fact that a pension had been refused by him, and that the widow had, in the ordinary course of affairs, applied to the appeal tribunal, and had been refused, he could do nothing more. But, he said, in view of the fact that her husband was a Regular soldier with 24½ years' service, he was sending the case to the War Office to see whether a pension could not be given under the Royal Warrant. So the case was passed to the War Office and I was told that I would eventually receive a reply from them. I did, and this is what they said:
In Mr. Henderson's temporary absence I am replying to your letter of 16th August which has been forwarded by Sir Walter Womersley about the case of Mrs. A. C. Williams, widow of S.S.Q.M.S. Williams, who lives at 36, Sirdar Road, Notting Hill, which is in my constituency. The position is that a pension for the widow of a soldier below the substantive rank of W.O. Class 1 is issuable

only if, among other conditions, his death is regarded as attributable to military service other than war service and occurs within seven years of his first removal from duty on account of the wound, injury or disease from which he died. I am afraid that the death of S.S.Q.M.S. Williams is not regarded as in any way attributable to his service before 1939, and that Mrs. Williams is not, therefore, eligible for an award of a pension from the Army authorities.
This widow, who was used to living on an income of about five guineas per week, because her husband was making a compulsory allotment and a considerable voluntary allotment, has now been reduced to living on the National Health Insurance pension, plus help from public assistance. Her actual total income now is £2 7s. 6d. a week, because she is a widow with three children under 14. She is unable to supplement that income by working because her three children are of school age. I think that the State has treated an old servant of 24½ years' service in a way which no private employer would dare to do, and my appeal is that if nothing can be done for Mrs. Williams now something ought to be done for such cases in future.
The first point I want to make to the Secretary of State for War is that something must be done to deal with these cases concerning Regular soldiers of long service, and that in accidents such as this, not attributable to war service, provision ought to be made for their widows and families. The Royal Warrant was referred to in the letter from the War Office. Article 1190 of the Warrant provides that a pension may be given to a warrant officer, Class 1, if death is non-attributable to war service. The yearly rate of pension with compassionate allowance is up to £30 for a widow and up to £10 for each child at the discretion of the authorities. This special rate is given only to warrant officers, Class 1, and it seems to me that Regular soldiers of equal length of service should have their cases considered also. All other ranks except warrant officers, Class 1, come under Article 1196, which I will read:
With the exception of the ordinary pension to widows of warrant officers, Class 1, grants of pensions to widows, children or other dependants of soldiers shall only be made when the soldier's death is directly attributable to service and when it takes place within seven years of the wound or injury from which he died or, in the case of death from disease, within seven years, and the death was not the result of injury or illness due to his own fault or negligence.


It seems to me that the provision for special treatment for warrant officers, Class 1, should be reviewed and the provision for all others serving in the Regular Army who agreed to serve 21 years or more should be looked into again to prevent this sort of thing happening to my constituents. I would ask the Secretary of State to have a special inquiry into these Articles of the Royal Warrant to bring the pension part up to date to deal with this sort of case, so that we can stand up to our constituents and say that in the future we are going to treat the widows of those who die by accident or disease non-attributable to service in the same way as a private employer would.
I would ask my right hon. Friend to have such an inquiry by an impartial committee as soon as possible—before the war ends. We want a Regular Army after the war. No one knows exactly how it will be composed, but on the assumption that it is partially a conscript Army, there will always have to be a nucleus of long-service parsonnel as instructors and N.C.Os., and those men must be treated well. We shall never get a Regular Army unless we pay them better and have better conditions for their pensions and for their widows. It is on this ground, that we ought to look forward to better conditions for the Regular Army after the war, that I have raised the question. I hope, if my right hon. Friend can do nothing for Mrs. Williams, we shall avoid in future having Mrs. Williams' types of cases coming before us again.

4.6 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): I apologise for not having been here when my hon. and gallant Friend commenced his speech. I was at a meeting a good distance away, but I came as quickly as I could. Quartermaster-Sergeant Williams died of cerebral haemorrhage while serving. He had served for 24½ years and was in receipt of his full pay. After completing 22 years' service, he had exercised his right to draw full pension in addition. The widow claimed from the Ministry of Pensions, who took the view that death was not due to war service; and when the widow took the case to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, they decided against her, and she cannot, therefore, get an award from the Ministry of Pensions. My hon. and gallant Friend now thinks that,

although it has been established that death was not connected with service, the War Office should grant a pension on the ground of long service in the Army. The case falls to be dealt with under the Pension Regulations for the Regular Army, and I am afraid there is no shadow of doubt—indeed, by quoting the relevant articles of the Royal Warrant my hon. and gallant Friend admits it—that the Regulations do not provide for a pension in these circumstances. They are, of course, of long standing, and they were, no doubt, well known to the late Quartermaster-Sergeant. They are also in this respect similar for all three Services.
The widows of officers or warrant officers of Class 1, or equivalent rank in the other Services, whether serving or retired, who died from non-attributable causes are under certain conditions entitled to pension. The widows of warrant officers, Class 2, and other ranks are not. The origin of the difference of treatment is of long standing, and it has generally been accepted for many years that it was intended as, an inducement to private soldiers to rise to the top of the tree. Some hon. Members may think the distinction anomalous, and even indefensible, but there is the provision. It has always been one of the conditions of service in the Army and, as such, must have been well known to long-service soldiers. It may be that, when the pension regulations come to be comprehensively reviewed to meet post-war conditions, this is one of the respects in which an alteration is desirable, and I will certainly have it noted as a point for consideration in the general review which will have to take place in time for the conditions of service in the post-war Army to be clearly understood in advance, because it is a matter of common knowledge now that the regular Army, at any rate in the ranks below warrant officer, Class I, has to all intents and purposes disappeared, or will have disappeared in a year or so. Most Regular soldiers by then will have completed their engagement.
That I certainly can and do promise, but I do not see how I can go further than that. Cases of this kind cannot be very frequent, and I cannot say off-hand what repercussions there would be to an amendment to the Regulations, but any proposal for amendment, now in particular, when we are at the climax of the war,


would involve discussion between the three Departments concerned and, the Treasury. This being so, it seems to me it is a matter which should be left until the review takes place in connection with the conditions of service for the post-war Army. I do not say that because I take any pleasure in saying "No," but because I have by now acquired a fairly large experience of trying to legislate for individual hard cases. Of course, the pressure to legislate for hard cases comes from a very praiseworthy motive, namely, that of aiming at complete justice in an imperfect world; but realised perfection is, at any rate on earth, a contradiction in terms. It always used to be said that hard cases make bad law. They certainly can make complicated law and so provide fruitful ground for disputation for lawyers and, it may not be out of place to add, civil servants.
I have no doubt that the complicated nature of the pay and pensions Regulations about which hon. Members have from time to time so justly complained in this House, and none more so than the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), is largely due to this attempt to legislate for hard individual cases. I do not want to go further into this aspect as I have said that the Regulations will have to be comprehensively reviewed to provide for the conditions of the post-war Army. When they are reviewed, I hope that they will aim at and achieve simplicity and stability. Otherwise, we are in danger of getting into a position of which I had considerable experience when I was in India. Shortly after I got to India in 1934 I started off on a crusade, and, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw knows, I started on a similar crusade in the War Office for simplifying the Regulations relating to Government servants. These Regulations were embodied in—I think I have the number right—15 volumes. Some of these volumes were quite small and some ran into hundreds of printed pages. Two of them ran into well over 1,000 pages. They were all alike in this, that there was scarcely a page which was not smothered in amendment slips. If one suggested reprinting, it was made clear that the volumes would be out of date long before the reprinting was complete.
Such complexity makes it difficult to administer any system, but it also leads to those who are governed by the Regulations being under constant uncertainty as to where they stand. When all this has been said, we agree with the hon. and gallant Member in sympathising with the widow in this case on falling outside the Regulations. We would all agree, I think, and I certainly do, that we must review these Regulations so as to see that the number of hard cases which can arise in post-war conditions is as few as possible. We would all agree that, subject to that, the Regulations ought to be as simple and as stable as possible and not subject to constant amendment.

Mr. Rhys Davies: We are all interested in cases of this kind and the hon. and gallant Gentleman has done good service in raising the issue. I was pleased with the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, but, having dealt with cases of this kind, I am wondering whether the widow is not entitled to a widow's pension under the Contributory Pensions Act.

Captain Duncan: I stated in my speech that she was entitled to a National Health Insurance pension, plus supplementation from public assistance, which I think is a disgrace.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: The point that has been raised by my hon. and gallant Friend has been, I will not say suitably, but adequately, answered according to the Regulations by the Secretary of State. I do not think that even my hon. and gallant Friend can find any fault with the answer, although he will undoubtedly find fault with the Regulations. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would be good enough to refer to some of the battles royal, if I may call them such, or, at any rate, some of the agitations that I have been persistently carrying on before him for some time. I think that what emerges from his answer is something of which the House ought to take serious note. My right hon. Friend has been good enough to say that he admits that these Regulations, the Warrants and the terms of service of our post-war Army must be attended to—but at some time hence. What I have urged before, and I urge it now with all the earnestness I can command, is that the time should be now and that it should not be left until after the war. As my


right hon. Friend has truly said, the whole of the Regular Army is in process of disappearing, some of them unfortunately by casualties, and others by the expiration of their normal engagements.
What is the position? When we come into the post-war world with numerous commitments, and not subject, as we were after the last war, to that ten-years' rule of no major war, we shall go into that period with practically no Regular Army. I ask my hon. and gallant Friends opposite, and I ask the Tory Party, who, as the Prime Minister once said, are supposed to be the protectors of our Constitution, what they think of that statement. Will they not urge on the Minister of Defence—because it is on a higher level than that of the Secretary of State for War—the necessity of getting down now to the recruitment of our post-war defence Forces on which we shall depend?

As I said yesterday, conscription is not the answer to this question.

Sir J. Grigg: If I may reply by the leave of the House, may I say, although it is outside the scope of the question raised, that if I gave the impression that this and similar and more important questions of conditions of service are being shoved off till the end of the war, I gave a misleading impression? A great deal of work has been and is being done to formulate proposals for the pay system and other conditions, and that work will go on continuously. All I say is that I do not think that these things will be finally settled except in relation to the recruitment of the post-war Army.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly, at Eighteen Minutes after Four o'Clock.